Australian Republican Movement

[Bada-Bing!]

I think begin a republic sounds cool, but nothing would change so there is no point in doing it. I don't think see it happening anytime soon after seeing the media coverage of the royal tour. one of the funny headlines was the breaking news of will and Kate walking 500m to a sheep pavilion









lest we forget.

This whole Will, Kate and George thing is one big PR Stunt for the Royals and I'm sure will prove very popular amongst Monarchists in Australia and NZ. I can't stand the monarchy, but have to hand it to the Windsors that since the debacle of Diana, Fergie etc, they've recovered nicely and George is their meal ticket to exploit for publicity purposes and prolong the monarchy's relevance. Even more so when I think most of us have become cynical with politicians.

Here in Britain, especially with the expenses scandal, one big argument against the Royals is that they cost the tax payer; but it seems that politicians are more culpable when it comes to taking advantage of then public purse. Hence why the smartest thing the monarchy did was to become a constitutional monarchy and have no power; it has ensured their survival. As long as there is a lack of alternative, there will always be inertia to get rid of them and as others have pointed out more important matters to deal with; becoming a republic will always be pushed to the bottom of the list of priorities.

 

[SimonG]

Here in Britain, especially with the expenses scandal, one big argument against the Royals is that they cost the tax payer; but it seems that politicians are more culpable when it comes to taking advantage of then public purse. Hence why the smartest thing the monarchy did was to become a constitutional monarchy and have no power; it has ensured their survival. As long as there is a lack of alternative, there will always be inertia to get rid of them and as others have pointed out more important matters to deal with; becoming a republic will always be pushed to the bottom of the list of priorities.

And whose argument would that be exactly? No republican (with an ounce of sanity) would use that as an argument given that the Monarch's (aka tourist trap) income dwarfs expenditure and is an economic golden goose for the UK. I personally would be republican, but I'm also an accountant that understands simple cost benefit analysis, and is infact the monarchists who point out this economic benefit as an argument to retain the Royals.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

And whose argument would that be exactly? No republican (with an ounce of sanity) would use that as an argument given that the Monarch's (aka tourist trap) income dwarfs expenditure and is an economic golden goose for the UK. I personally would be republican, but I'm also an accountant that understands simple cost benefit analysis, and is infact the monarchists who point out this economic benefit as an argument to retain the Royals.

That's a very contentious point regarding the economic benefits the monarchy brings in terms of tourism. It would be interesting to see figures of how much tourism directly relates to the monarchy. But such Figures can be skewed to favour the benefits the monarchy bring. It might be one factor for tourists to come to visit the UK, but it is not going to be the only reason they would come to the UK.

Another benefit that is hard to measure in financial terms is goodwill the UK receive from the ambassadorial role they play in promoting the UK to the rest of the world. Some would argue the presence of Prince William (as well as Beckham and Blair) had a big effect of the outcome the selection of London for the 2012 Olympics. But conversely Prince Williams' presence had no effect on FIFA, when they came to chose Russia; instead of England, as World Cup hosts for 2018.

 

[McTallshort]

That's a very contentious point regarding the economic benefits the monarchy brings in terms of tourism. It would be interesting to see figures of how much tourism directly relates to the monarchy. But such Figures can be skewed to favour the benefits the monarchy bring. It might be one factor for tourists to come to visit the UK, but it is not going to be the only reason they would come to the UK.

Another benefit that is hard to measure in financial terms is goodwill the UK receive from the ambassadorial role they play in promoting the UK to the rest of the world. Some would argue the presence of Prince William (as well as Beckham and Blair) had a big effect of the outcome the selection of London for the 2012 Olympics. But conversely Prince Williams' presence had no effect on FIFA, when they came to chose Russia; instead of England, as World Cup hosts for 2018.

No because FIFA are more open to bribes.

 

[Peat]

That's a very contentious point regarding the economic benefits the monarchy brings in terms of tourism. It would be interesting to see figures of how much tourism directly relates to the monarchy. But such Figures can be skewed to favour the benefits the monarchy bring. It might be one factor for tourists to come to visit the UK, but it is not going to be the only reason they would come to the UK.

Another benefit that is hard to measure in financial terms is goodwill the UK receive from the ambassadorial role they play in promoting the UK to the rest of the world. Some would argue the presence of Prince William (as well as Beckham and Blair) had a big effect of the outcome the selection of London for the 2012 Olympics. But conversely Prince Williams' presence had no effect on FIFA, when they came to chose Russia; instead of England, as World Cup hosts for 2018.

It is a contentious point and I remember reading something back in my teens suggesting that the Royal Family were low down on the reasons people came to Britain. But that was about ten years ago, so things might have changed, and things can skew both ways. Also, speaking of the ambassadorial note and in a way not everyone will agree with, but it was much commented on in the papers how a pricing dispute between BAE and Saudi Arabia was resolved shortly after Prince Charles' arrival.

Post-Olympics, everyone was talking about how the British brand was really strong - world power in soft power and all that. The Royal Family was definitely considered part of that. For better or for worse, the current Royal Family is seen as part of Britain's brand. They're one of our advertising signs. People seem to like them. If we're trying to persuade the wealthy of China and India to buy Land Rovers, wear Burberry and drink Johnnie Walker, they help. Or, if we're trying to encourage the people of Australia to remember that culturally, we have similar origins, and cement a bond, they can be useful. Right now, they're probably an asset.

I want to hang myself for talking about the British brand and national assets and ****.

 

[Da Grappla]

Last king of Egypt said back then at his dethroning (or whatever) that within 50 years, only five kings will last all over the world; diamonds, hearts, clubs, spades and the english one.

He made it wrong, but it was a clue about how much people relate the United KINGDOM to its royal family.

I bet a king will sit in London and another in Tokyo for a couple of centuries still.

 

[Groundhog]

THE KING IN THE NORTH!!!!!!
Sorry I'll be leaving

 

[RoosTah]

That's a very short direct statement to a huge problem, debate, whatever you want to call it.. you might want to have a little more context or look into it a bit more before you just say "Ireland should be one". That's certainly not the majority opinion in the north. People can identify themselves with whatever terms they like, it doesn't matter, I'm from the island of Ireland but hold a British passport so I can identify myself as either, or even 'Northern Irish'.

Just reading through this thread it's very clear sanzar has a personal vendetta against the UK/England, so arguing with reason won't work.

That's simply nonsense. I'm passionate about it, but this entire debate got hijacked because a couple of the English members here decided that I was effectively a Nazi for saying our association with England hasn't simply failed to proffer any benefit on Australia since Federation, but has actually been down right bad for us, with a series of awful decisions by London leading to disasters in our part of the world.

What has flowed from that is a stream of hyperventilating on behalf of a few English here about how I fail to understand how tough England had it etc etc, all the while failing to address the point that NONE of it changes the fact that there is simply ZERO security, economic or sentimental rationale to retaining the British monarchy as our Head of State.

You can argue whether it's fair or not to bring in the Singapore debacle (which, as I said, is in fact viewed as a betrayal in Australian history classes whether you like it or not up there) or the decision to outsource our naval defence to the Japanese, but none of this alters the fundamental fact that our association with Britain has ultimately proved a burden.

I've left this for a little while because I figure any debate needs a bit of breathing space the moment it is apparent 'Godwin's Law' has entered into effect (thank you for that Tallshort...).

But it's been a little while now, so perhaps Tallshort has calmed down and won't be asking his English friends in Australia to quickly leave the country lest a 'final solution' from your local Australian republican befall them if I once more suggest that ultimately the British Monarchy represents everything we otherwise claim to be against (entrenched privilege, nepotism, and non-democratic and entirely exclusive positions of public office) and so therefore has little place in our life in the 21st century.

Last king of Egypt said back then at his dethroning (or whatever) that within 50 years, only five kings will last all over the world; diamonds, hearts, clubs, spades and the english one.

He made it wrong, but it was a clue about how much people relate the United KINGDOM to its royal family.

I bet a king will sit in London and another in Tokyo for a couple of centuries still.

There'll certainly never not be an Emperor in Japan unless there is another massive war like WW2 and a country similar to the former USSR has its way. The Russians had planned a massive assault on Japan during WW2 from the north in conjunction with the Americans and fully intended to publicly execute Hirohito if they took Tokyo and Kyoto. The Americans however, like the British in India, recognised the utility of local lackeys with a history of power and influence, so pardoned him.

 

[RoosTah]

That's a very contentious point regarding the economic benefits the monarchy brings in terms of tourism. It would be interesting to see figures of how much tourism directly relates to the monarchy. But such Figures can be skewed to favour the benefits the monarchy bring. It might be one factor for tourists to come to visit the UK, but it is not going to be the only reason they would come to the UK.

Another benefit that is hard to measure in financial terms is goodwill the UK receive from the ambassadorial role they play in promoting the UK to the rest of the world. Some would argue the presence of Prince William (as well as Beckham and Blair) had a big effect of the outcome the selection of London for the 2012 Olympics. But conversely Prince Williams' presence had no effect on FIFA, when they came to chose Russia; instead of England, as World Cup hosts for 2018.

Clearly Prince William should have travelled to see the House of Thani to ask how best to phrase one's arguments on the benefits of granting world cup hosting rights. Judging by their success, perhaps a minimum quota on the cruelty you would dish out to your construction workers would have helped?

 

[Rich Taff]

What a load of utter cr*p.
Think tallshort summed it up perfectly.

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.

 

[RoosTah]

What a load of utter cr*p.
Think tallshort summed it up perfectly.

The only load of crap is the insistence by people like Tallshort that because they've served and had family who've died in the wars that somehow these things don't matter. My uncle died in WW2, my great uncle died in France in WW1, and half my family are in the armed services. So why should do I have to listen to some sh*t-head on the other side of the world about how much his family has lost and why the f##k does that make any difference to the f##king point? And what's more, the condescending sh#t has the audacity to insinuate I'm some sort of bloody nazi for not towing the pommy line on history! Seriously, if Tallshort was really angry and horrified about the stories he's heard about Singapore, then he ought to at least acknowledge the monumental f#ck-ups that led to it and where they originated.

Pull your head in mate, it's not all about you and it's not about the feelings of people in England.

Again, on the point all you boys from the UK have spent so much time being irate at the idea people in Australia might have been p*$$ed at you for war-time f##k ups that none have you have managed to say a SINGLE THING countering my basic point. That alone suggests to me you've just got nothing to offer other than puffed up patriotism.

And of the record, I'm not just some coffee-shop debater, I was involved in last years election so I'm no exactly inactive politically. This sh*t actually matters to me, and it matters to a lot of us. There's a reason that there's been a massive upswing in republican membership since that d#ckhead Tony Abbott got into power, and it's not because of coffee-shop debates mate.

 

[SimonG]

Sanzar...relax yourself.

Two points;

history will always have differing versions of events depending on the perspective of who is giving it, thus none are usually accurate.

Regards the monarchy (privilege, nepotism etc etc), this argument would have been relevant a long time ago (circa mid 19th century) when the monarch had power and an actual say in matters...now they are nothing more than a celebrity type money making machine who draw crowds wherever they go, cut ribbons to open up new shops/buildings, visit places around the world which provides a cash injection to the local area, and back in England are a tourist trap where folk around the world visit, spend money and boost the economy.

Those arguments for a "republic" don't carry much water. Australia to all intents and purposes is a republic. Compare that to Scotland (or here in the north of Ireland) where neither are independent and both are being run by Westminster.

 

[RoosTah]

SimonG,

You're right that we are in effect an independent country, but the points I've raised are counter-arguments to a lot of the 'virtues' raised by monarchists are constantly peddling here. Monarchists go on about the 'stability' that the monarchy provides and how much our connection with Britain has done for us, and some how they get away with it in spite of it being total BS. As you say, we're an independent nation for all intents and purposes, and yet these jokers are hanging onto this colonial hang-over on the most ridiculous of grounds.

The Monarchy may be glorified ribbon cutting hereditary brand ambassadors for all things British, but as an institution they are still symbols, and symbols are important. And whilst their role in public life is minimal, they regardless remain symbols of the type of privilege, nepotism and merit devoid structures that we would otherwise decry were it not for the fact they were 'royal'.

On Scotland though, I hear they're planning to split from the UK. Is that true? And what's the key complaint on their behalf?

 

[SimonG]

The symbols you speak off are not what they were though...the monarchy is seen as much more hip than previously...they are a brand. Was watching Fox news yesterday (usually watch it to laugh at the wacky right wing yankee nutters) and they cut their news segment to show live footage of William in Vegas. Fact is the royals are money spinners..celebs. I would say Diana transformed everything and it hasn't been the same since. The old vision/symbol of privilege and snooty toffs doesn't apply as much today.

The Scots are socialists (generally)...vote labour, or liberal democrats....while nobody votes conservatives whose policies are alien to them. Given that Conservatives currently run Westminister, and as a result Scotland, many Scots want no part of this and want to have jurisdiction over themselves. Personally I think they'd be mad to let the status quo continue.

 

[RoosTah]

The symbols you speak off are not what they were though...the monarchy is seen as much more hip than previously...they are a brand. Was watching Fox news yesterday (usually watch it to laugh at the wacky right wing yankee nutters) and they cut their news segment to show live footage of William in Vegas. Fact is the royals are money spinners..celebs. I would say Diana transformed everything and it hasn't been the same since. The old vision/symbol of privilege and snooty toffs doesn't apply as much today.

I understand that they're celebs at this point, but ultimately I think that it's pretty and distracting window dressing on system that remains the embodiment of all the things I described no matter how you cut it. Put it to you this way: if you had to describe to someone completely ignorant of it how the monarchy is structured and how the people involved get their positions, how do you think it would sound?

On FoxNews, yes it's bizarre isn't it? I watch US politics and media fairly closely and it's really odd how they can shift between talking with pride about their separation from Britain and the "evil" (yes, I've heard him described so on Fox) King George, and then get all excited by a Royal visit. The seem capable of drawing a line there somehow, but funnily attacked Obama for bowing to the Japanese Emperor because the POTUS shouldn't be demonstrating deference to the monsters of WWII.

The Scots are socialists (generally)...vote labour, or liberal democrats....while nobody votes conservatives whose policies are alien to them. Given that Conservatives currently run Westminister, and as a result Scotland, many Scots want no part of this and want to have jurisdiction over themselves. Personally I think they'd be mad to let the status quo continue.

That makes sense. If they're suffering the tyranny of a majority in the south that doesn't look after them, then why would they want to be part of it. Economically though, how stable is Scotland? What a separation be rational from that perspective?

 

[SimonG]

Scotland is stable economically, and while there are pros and cons to becoming independent, any sane human being would rather have their own government. I think it's inevitable, just as it is here. The big sticking point is what currency they would use.

It's ironic that Adam Smith, the man often seen as the father of capitalism and a hero to Thatcher, was a Scot. If Scotland does become independent and socialist as a result, the big disadvantage is England would become more capitalist, lower taxes, which would draw overseas business away from Scotland towards England. Some businesses in Scotland have threatened to pull out if there is a yes vote to independence.

 

[RoosTah]

Scotland is stable economically, and while there are pros and cons to becoming independent, any sane human being would rather have their own government. I think it's inevitable, just as it is here. The big sticking point is what currency they would use.

It's ironic that Adam Smith, the man often seen as the father of capitalism and a hero to Thatcher, was a Scot. If Scotland does become independent and socialist as a result, the big disadvantage is England would become more capitalist, lower taxes, which would draw overseas business away from Scotland towards England. Some businesses in Scotland have threatened to pull out if there is a yes vote to independence.

Scotland seem to have borne a few of his type since too. Niall Ferguson very much continues on in his tradition (albeit in a far more populist and self-absorbed fashion). He's got a few engaging reads on history though to be fair - although his work 'The Pity of War' effectively blames England for WWI and suggests the world would have been better off if the UK and its allies lost - a notion that I'm sure would result in a few here cataloguing how much their family died for etc etc.

On their independence, if their economic integrity depends on the finance industry or the presence of certain tax-shy multinationals, then it will have implications for how any newly independent government evolves. So if their early days sees a few run off, I'd imagine the changes to their tax system would stop being too drastic before long. The government would then just shift focus to other social issues and try to slowly restructure to diversify - if they're smart.

 

[iINDOMINUSxx]

Scotland is stable economically, and while there are pros and cons to becoming independent, any sane human being would rather have their own government. I think it's inevitable, just as it is here. The big sticking point is what currency they would use.

It's ironic that Adam Smith, the man often seen as the father of capitalism and a hero to Thatcher, was a Scot. If Scotland does become independent and socialist as a result, the big disadvantage is England would become more capitalist, lower taxes, which would draw overseas business away from Scotland towards England. Some businesses in Scotland have threatened to pull out if there is a yes vote to independence.

ah yes the independent debate since im scottish i'll add something i would have maybe considered independent if it wasn't lead by alex salmond he just gives me the creeps and he praises certain aspects off putins leadership saying he also likes to see him restoring russian pride is not right

 

[Bada-Bing!]

The SNP are living in cloud cuckoo land. They have time and again failed to answer the question of what their plan B will be if the UK does not back a currency Union; which all three main Westminster parties have said they will not. Yes, Scotland are welcome to use the pound if they choose Independence but the rest of Britain are not going to bail them out if it all gets ***s up. It might be boring and negative; but it's reality. That for me is the fundamental sticking point with Scotland becoming independent; they are welcome to it if they choose to this September, but there is no way the rest of the UK is bailing them out if it goes wrong.

 

[iINDOMINUSxx]

actually the vote is in august