Australian Republican Movement

[McTallshort]

You really have taken this personally haven't you Tallshort?

Of course I'm aware Britain was fighting a war at home. But if you don't know that what happened with Singapore was widely considered a betrayal here because of the complete disregard shown to Australian advice, then you're clearly only getting the English side of the story.

In any case, my central point is - and has been throughout - that our history since Federation provides no reasons for Australia to continue maintaining its connection to Britain via your monarchy. Moreover, even if the relationship had provided some benefits, as an institution the Monarchy is the antithesis of the values we pretend to hold of equality, fairness and opportunity.

Well yes I am because I had relatives fight in both wars, I also served for a number of years in the British army and during that time met many veterans (remembrance day etc) one of who was captured in Singapore and told us all some very shocking things about his time in Japanese captivity and now Im listening to some over educated, Coffee shop debater from a country that was relatively unscathed by both wars bang on that they were betrayed by a country that at the time was fighting for its very existence.

So yes I have taken it personally if you want shot of the Queen fine but dont try causing a load of anti British feeling just to ensure that happens because its rather stupid and I do worry for friends of mine who have moved to Aus to make new lives if you are what will be the Political class in a few years time.

The only betraying the British government did in Aus was not speaking up when the Federal government committed a whole host of shocking injustices to the native population.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

He'd be even more confused considering the ANZAC compain to Gallipoli was during WW1 .

As it is, it was a terribly managed compaign in which English generals cost thousands of ANZAC lives. But they also costs thousands of English lives too. They were incompetant and arrogant and used to a system of war which was heavily outdated - so marching out of trenches into machine gun fire was considered a 'good idea'. Regardless more Brits actually died in Galipolli, and there were plenty of French and Indian troops that died too and overall it was just a big mess.

The thing is it wasn't English generals that messed up, the chain of command that messed up at Gallipoli was actually Australian officers. You then have the fact that the Australian attack was actually a diversion for a NZ attack, not a British one. Lastly many Brits died trying to save the Aussies when it was clear the attack had petered out. Considering the quotes about the Brits here fit very nicely into the narrative presented by the film and not the facts, I do strongly suspect this is what I have coined "Braveheart syndrome" - A rise in hatred of a nation or people based on an inaccurate film that goes out of its way to demonise a certain group whilst claiming to be historically accurate.

As for you SANZAR, I can only judge you based on what you say here and everything you have said here strongly implies you subscribe to the brave and intelligent Aussie being snubbed by the stupid and arrogant British. It has no basis in fact and a lot of basis in people who have a confirmation bias. Britain didn't want to lose Singapore and you think we wanted 2 of our capital ships to get sunk by the Japanese, to face the biggest military surrender in our history? No Britain thought we had the resources necessary to defend Singapore and it was not some attempt to betray Australia. Quite frankly we had our own problems in that war and once Singapore was lost, regaining it was not a high priority because Australia wasn't really threatened. You go on about this betrayal, just how much did it affect Australia eh? You weren't carpet bombed like England was, you didn't have the enemy sitting just across a small stretch of water from you whilst all your military equipment had been abandoned, you weren't being blockaded. Australia was sitting relatively comfortably compared to Britain.

 

[Groundhog]

Well this got heated, understandably I suppose. It's not my place to comment on deep seated historical issues but Oz and Nz could do with a flag change I think. They are quite similar to many. On the whole head of state thing I think it's beneficial for a nation to have their own head of state who advertises their nation abroad and the Queen probably doesn't do that for Oz and Nz. I think our president does that quite well although Michael.D is a legend. As he cant actually affect politics hugely his political past isn't a huge issue. However it must be said that the Queen earns far more money for the British economy than she is given every year. Excellent tourist attraction. That's not much use to the Commonwealth boys of course. That's about as far as Im willing to comment on a situation I don't understand as I know I wouldn't want anyone with no clue commenting on Ireland.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Well to answer the opening post's question without getting into the historical mudslinging; I say go for it. I'm from England and I personally can't stand what the monarchy stand for: which is earning position by virtue of birth and not by your talent, contents of your character and hard work. All this news of William and Kate's visit to Australia and NZ and how cute little Georgie is has me reaching for the proverbial sick bucket.

This is a question for the Australian people and if they choose it then good luck to them. Same goes for NZ and Canada and any other Commonwealth country who want to get rid of the Queen as their head of state.

 

[LittleGuy]

Yeah we are really getting into the weeds with the World War(s) stuff guys, can we try and get it back on track to the orignal question.

 

[nickdnz]

The thing is it wasn't English generals that messed up, the chain of command that messed up at Gallipoli was actually Australian officers. You then have the fact that the Australian attack was actually a diversion for a NZ attack, not a British one. Lastly many Brits died trying to save the Aussies when it was clear the attack had petered out. Considering the quotes about the Brits here fit very nicely into the narrative presented by the film and not the facts, I do strongly suspect this is what I have coined "Braveheart syndrome" - A rise in hatred of a nation or people based on an inaccurate film that goes out of its way to demonise a certain group whilst claiming to be historically accurate.

As for you SANZAR, I can only judge you based on what you say here and everything you have said here strongly implies you subscribe to the brave and intelligent Aussie being snubbed by the stupid and arrogant British. It has no basis in fact and a lot of basis in people who have a confirmation bias. Britain didn't want to lose Singapore and you think we wanted 2 of our capital ships to get sunk by the Japanese, to face the biggest military surrender in our history? No Britain thought we had the resources necessary to defend Singapore and it was not some attempt to betray Australia. Quite frankly we had our own problems in that war and once Singapore was lost, regaining it was not a high priority because Australia wasn't really threatened. You go on about this betrayal, just how much did it affect Australia eh? You weren't carpet bombed like England was, you didn't have the enemy sitting just across a small stretch of water from you whilst all your military equipment had been abandoned, you weren't being blockaded. Australia was sitting relatively comfortably compared to Britain.

Having never watched Gallipoli I can assure you it's not the case. It's studied in every history class in New Zealand however...The officer who was supervising the opperation was in fact Rear-Admiral Cecil Thursby - not an Australian but an Englishmen. It was his decision to land on ANZAC cove - and it was a poor one, and one of many.

Once again I don't hate the English at all. My grandparents were English and both grandfathers served in WW2, and their fathers WW1. Stop being so precious.

 

[Da Grappla]

It doesn't look good http://www.smh.com.au/business/chinas-property-dragons-are-just-warming-up-20140411-36gjl.html

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Having never watched Gallipoli I can assure you it's not the case. It's studied in every history class in New Zealand however...The officer who was supervising the opperation was in fact Rear-Admiral Cecil Thursby - not an Australian but an Englishmen. It was his decision to land on ANZAC cove - and it was a poor one, and one of many.

Once again I don't hate the English at all. My grandparents were English and both grandfathers served in WW2, and their fathers WW1. Stop being so precious.

I wasn't talking about you hating the English, I was addressing SANZAR with regards to that. The Braveheart syndrome is a general observation, not one I was levelling at you personally. Also the bit about the chain of command is at the Nek with the guy colonel robinson. Feel free to look up the cricism yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_(1981_film)#Historical_criticism

 

[Kiwiwomble]

maybe time to lock this? i know this is for off topic discussion but cant see this thread doing much good from now on, everyone seems pretty set in their beliefs and some have been rudely dismissive of others

my only contribution will be to say some people in here need to learn no one is ever as right as they seems to believe they are

 

[LittleGuy]

maybe time to lock this? i know this is for off topic discussion but cant see this thread doing much good from now on, everyone seems pretty set in their beliefs and some have been rudely dismissive of others

my only contribution will be to say some people in here need to learn no one is ever as right as they seems to believe they are

Yeah, I have to concur with a lot of this, as I said in a post a few hours ago we've headed into the weeds, particularly on the World War(s) history. It would be nice to get back on to topic guys, earlier in the thread there was some interesting and cordial disscussion on the constituional monarchy system. If we can get back to that we might be able to salvage the thread.

 

[McTallshort]

If the author of this article wanted things to stay on topic he shouldnt have used some of the language he did. My opinion is he knew slating a large population on this forum would get a negative response which would make him a troll if that wasnt his motive then he is at worst stupid at best naive as I said before I have nothing against republican opinions but I do object to someone playing some kind of victim just so they can justify their bigoted and ill informed opinions.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

If the author of this article wanted things to stay on topic he shouldnt have used some of the language he did. My opinion is he knew slating a large population on this forum would get a negative response which would make him a troll if that wasnt his motive then he is at worst stupid at best naive as I said before I have nothing against republican opinions but I do object to someone playing some kind of victim just so they can justify their bigoted and ill informed opinions.

I agree with this. Had Sanzar just kept it on topic and stated where Australia are and why he is for the republican movement and why a constitutional monarchy no longer fits into the current Australian political landscape then that is fair enough.

The monarchy is far too entrenched in British political system for them to be removed here in Britain, but the question is why haven't Australia and NZ's republican movement been stronger? As has been highlighted here are two former colonies who have developed their own identity; they owe nothing to Britain anymore; why hasn't there been a stampede to remove the Queen as head of state? Tony Abbott is a known Monarchist and yet the Australian people voted for him as PM.

I spent a lot a time in Oz and for it felt like the big country feel of the US, but with British values; which is why a lot of British ex-pats love to move over there (not including the weather). However, unlike the US, I don't think Australia can get away from their British heritage and that is what makes them cling onto the Queen as head of state as logically the arguments for her removal as Australia's head of state are undeniable.

 

[nickdnz]

If the author of this article wanted things to stay on topic he shouldnt have used some of the language he did. My opinion is he knew slating a large population on this forum would get a negative response which would make him a troll if that wasnt his motive then he is at worst stupid at best naive as I said before I have nothing against republican opinions but I do object to someone playing some kind of victim just so they can justify their bigoted and ill informed opinions.

I don't think he was slating a large portion of the population - unless a large portion of the population constitutes the British government and particularly the departments which sanzar feels didn't support Australia. It could have perhaps been worded differently - but I think you need to calm down and stop attacking a poster personally for his political views. The reality is that English politicians do whats best for England, as they should. The downside to that is other countries which feel certain assurances were made to them, can in fact feel betrayed when the English government don't put their interests ahead of its own.

As I mentioned earlier - when England joined the EU it seriously damaged New Zealand's economy, as England was our main trading partener and we relied heavily on a dairy industry which England was buiying from within the EU. Was it the right move for England? Sure, they could get it cheaper in the EU and there were goodwill benefits to joining. Regardless it hurt a colony of England. Were we betrayed? From a certain point of view yes.

I agree with this. Had Sanzar just kept it on topic and stated where Australia are and why he is for the republican movement and why a constitutional monarchy no longer fits into the current Australian political landscape then that is fair enough.

The monarchy is far too entrenched in British political system for them to be removed here in Britain, but the question is why haven't Australia and NZ's republican movement been stronger? As has been highlighted here are two former colonies who have developed their own identity; they owe nothing to Britain anymore; why hasn't there been a stampede to remove the Queen as head of state? Tony Abbott is a known Monarchist and yet the Australian people voted for him as PM.

I spent a lot a time in Oz and for it felt like the big country feel of the US, but with British values; which is why a lot of British ex-pats love to move over there (not including the weather). However, unlike the US, I don't think Australia can get away from their British heritage and that is what makes them cling onto the Queen as head of state as logically the arguments for her removal as Australia's head of state are undeniable.

To be fair - part of his on topic was the historical basis he felt Australia didn't fit in the commonwealth. I genuinely don't think he was trying to antagonize anyone.

Well I think there are several reasons we haven't changed. As you may have noticed by checking your national teams, every second person in New Zealand has a grandparent who is from the UK (jokes ). That's a lot of old people who still feel very much connected to Britian.

We're a country full of old people. The next few generations will probably feel further removed from Britian, and popular opinion will probably change. The other reason as I mentioned - is that it's quite a bit of work to change the system and by in large the monarchy doesn't really concern anyone in their day to day lives. I'd argue that historically our governments political stance on becoming a republic goes along the lines of "We're not procrastinating - we just like to do things later".

 

[Bada-Bing!]

To be fair - part of his on topic was the historical basis he felt Australia didn't fit in the commonwealth. I genuinely don't think he was trying to antagonize anyone.

Well I think there are several reasons we haven't changed. As you may have noticed by checking your national teams, every second person in New Zealand has a grandparent who is from the UK (jokes ). That's a lot of old people who still feel very much connected to Britian.

We're a country full of old people. The next few generations will probably feel further removed from Britian, and popular opinion will probably change. The other reason as I mentioned - is that it's quite a bit of work to change the system and by in large the monarchy doesn't really concern anyone in their day to day lives. I'd argue that historically our governments political stance on becoming a republic goes along the lines of "We're not procrastinating - we just like to do things later".

That is fine; I don't have a problem with why the Commonwealth is no longer relevant to Australia. But when SANZAR starts mentioning being betrayed and bringing up phrases like being stabbed in the back it is going to get certain people's back up. Every country has a history and the elite have shat on those below; Australia are no different. No point dragging **** up that adds nothing to the debate, but instead turns the thread into a mudslinging contest and that's when we get into who did what and who was to blame in 2 world wars.

I did not comment more on NZ because I have not been there, but it is interesting perspective from a Kiwi.

 

[SimonG]

Wow quite a heated topic. Sanzar has blown a gasket!

The whole aspect of "republic movement" is rather meaningless as Australia is to all intents and purposes a republic. Australia also has its own anthem. Is Maam on the currency? I can't see any aspect of how the monarchy affects Oz society one iota. It's just symbolic. Having that minor linkage is a nod to the country's past...if Aussies want to cut off that linkage I can't see how it would change anything. The majority of its populous is of British ancestry and perhaps when that changes then it would be more understandable. I do agree with a flag change though..."Britain at night"..haha. Regards Britain, the monarchy is a priceless asset to the economy and prestige, an absolute goldmine, so no way will it disappear anytime soon. Plus they are for the most part very likeable.

I'm Irish and i am geographically inside the UK due to an artificial state that was named "northern Ireland" (my own county Tyrone was so close to being part of the republic but those who manufactured this state needed that bit more land to make it viable). Whilst I am a nationalist and want to see my country reunited, I actually would have zero problem remaining part of the UK in a united Ireland (no chance the southerners would agree to that btw). We are drenched in British culture. I'm totally fine with it, infact I embrace it and am thankful to Britain for it. There are those who fight it (join Gaelic clubs, do Irish dancing, even learn the Irish language)..fair enough, Sanzar it would appear belongs in this camp. It ain't for me. British culture is the best on the planet and has had the biggest influence on the modern world.

Take a look at all the former colonies of Spanish, Portuguese, German, Dutch, French Empires...third world cesspits. The British Empire, the Anglosphere, leads civilisation in the modern world. Russia with its communism, Italy with its fascism, the Islamic worid with its backward religiosity. Without the influence of Britain and the Anglosphere these systems would have run amok. Every country has it faults, but there is so much to be thankful to Britain

 

[McTallshort]

]I don't think he was slating a large portion of the population - unless a large portion of the population constitutes the British government and particularly the departments which sanzar feels didn't support Australia.[/B] It could have perhaps been worded differently - but I think you need to calm down and stop attacking a poster personally for his political views. The reality is that English politicians do whats best for England, as they should. The downside to that is other countries which feel certain assurances were made to them, can in fact feel betrayed when the English government don't put their interests ahead of its own.

As I mentioned earlier - when England joined the EU it seriously damaged New Zealand's economy, as England was our main trading partener and we relied heavily on a dairy industry which England was buiying from within the EU. Was it the right move for England? Sure, they could get it cheaper in the EU and there were goodwill benefits to joining. Regardless it hurt a colony of England. Were we betrayed? From a certain point of view yes.



To be fair - part of his on topic was the historical basis he felt Australia didn't fit in the commonwealth. I genuinely don't think he was trying to antagonize anyone.

Well I think there are several reasons we haven't changed. As you may have noticed by checking your national teams, every second person in New Zealand has a grandparent who is from the UK (jokes ). That's a lot of old people who still feel very much connected to Britian.

We're a country full of old people. The next few generations will probably feel further removed from Britian, and popular opinion will probably change. The other reason as I mentioned - is that it's quite a bit of work to change the system and by in large the monarchy doesn't really concern anyone in their day to day lives. I'd argue that historically our governments political stance on becoming a republic goes along the lines of "We're not procrastinating - we just like to do things later".

As we are a democracy the government is our country as we voted for it. If he does not understand that then he doesnt understand a great deal.

 

[Da Grappla]

Wow quite a heated topic. Sanzar has blown a gasket!

The whole aspect of "republic movement" is rather meaningless as Australia is to all intents and purposes a republic. Australia also has its own anthem. Is Maam on the currency? I can't see any aspect of how the monarchy affects Oz society one iota. It's just symbolic. Having that minor linkage is a nod to the country's past...if Aussies want to cut off that linkage I can't see how it would change anything. The majority of its populous is of British ancestry and perhaps when that changes then it would be more understandable. I do agree with a flag change though..."Britain at night"..haha. Regards Britain, the monarchy is a priceless asset to the economy and prestige, an absolute goldmine, so no way will it disappear anytime soon. Plus they are for the most part very likeable.

I'm Irish and i am geographically inside the UK due to an artificial state that was named "northern Ireland" (my own county Tyrone was so close to being part of the republic but those who manufactured this state needed that bit more land to make it viable). Whilst I am a nationalist and want to see my country reunited, I actually would have zero problem remaining part of the UK in a united Ireland (no chance the southerners would agree to that btw). We are drenched in British culture. I'm totally fine with it, infact I embrace it and am thankful to Britain for it. There are those who fight it (join Gaelic clubs, do Irish dancing, even learn the Irish language)..fair enough, Sanzar it would appear belongs in this camp. It ain't for me. British culture is the best on the planet and has had the biggest influence on the modern world.

Take a look at all the former colonies of Spanish, Portuguese, German, Dutch, French Empires...third world cesspits. The British Empire, the Anglosphere, leads civilisation in the modern world. Russia with its communism, Italy with its fascism, the Islamic worid with its backward religiosity. Without the influence of Britain and the Anglosphere these systems would have run amok. Every country has it faults, but there is so much to be thankful to Britain

From a very foreing point of view, and a pragmatic one, Ireland should be one like it is in rugby. And part of the UK. Never met an irishmen who thought that before in my life...and I've met a few. Actually, they take offense if called "british", even speaking of a mere geographical matter. Not an oddity, because people here reffuse to thing we are africans because our islands are off the african coast.

By the way, Spain never had "colonies", but provinces. The more european populated they were, the more prosperous they became before and after their independeces. The good ones; Chile, Argentine, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Puerto Rico and Cuba.

 

[McTallshort]

From a very foreing point of view, and a pragmatic one, Ireland should be one like it is in rugby. And part of the UK. Never met an irishmen who thought that before in my life...and I've met a few. Actually, they take offense if called "british", even speaking of a mere geographical matter. Not an oddity, because people here reffuse to thing we are africans because our islands are off the african coast.

By the way, Spain never had "colonies", but provinces. The more european populated they were, the more prosperous they became before and after their independeces. The good ones; Chile, Argentine, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Puerto Rico and Cuba.

obviously never been to Belfast

 

[Da Grappla]

obviously never been to Belfast

But met people from there...almost all republicans. And even the unionists were not exactly like SimonG.

 

[McTallshort]

look mate have a look at bbc news around July 12th and tell me how many unionists find being British offensive and dont try and understand it either as you never will