Let us never speak of this unfortunate incident again

Dave C says:

06:27pm | 13/10/09

What a load of Republican BS. In 1999 we had a referendum and the people voted NO. It was not “Hijacked” by JWH (by the way I bet you think Howard is the anti Christ like the trendy left Melbourne Age ABC Crowd dont you… sorry I digress). There was a convention and a question was put to the people and the people rejected it. I suppose that what modern Republicans think of the democratic process dont they. However if you must put the question (AGAIN and waste taxpayers dollars doing it) as to whether we want a Republic regardless of model then some of the people who voted Yes in 99 because they felt safe with the model will certainly vote NO as they dont know what sort of Republic we may get.

The arguments against a Republic are

1) The current system is fine, we are a Liberal Democracy and the rest of the world know who we are. We dont need change for the sake of it.
2) It wont fix the economy, or the environment, help the plight of refugees or Aboriginals. Its a non solution to a non problem
3) If we have a directly elected President then stand by for Shane Warne,  or any popular smuck that the people like. Its democracy remember??? or does the model only include the Republican Elites standing for President
4) Look at France Germany and Russia wonderful Republics at first very stable Governments that eventually lead to wonderful regimes under Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin.
5) Maybe we can be “the people democratic republic of Australia”, just like China or Kim Jong Ills North Korea or even other wonderful examples of republics such as Iraq under Saddam, The Taliban in Afghanistan etc

Essentially What I am saying is that it wont help Australia or the lives of Australians at all. As well using examples mentioned above Republics can turn at worse countries into dictatorships lead by despots or at very least it will make us more politically unstable than the current stable system we have now.

Your thoughts fellow bloggers.

Brian McKinlay says:

08:14pm | 13/10/09

In Australia since 1976, “God save the Queen” has been officially Australia’s Royal Anthem and may be played on royal, vice-regal, defence and loyal toast occasions. HRH the Duke of Kent is royal and a representative of the Queen. His presence therefore may be acknowledged by the playing, not of the British national anthem, but Australia’s Royal Anthem

Ron M says:

08:29pm | 13/10/09

Best summed up by, and I quote, “if it ain’t broke, then don’t fix it”.

Tim says:

09:20pm | 13/10/09

Thoughts Dave C?
Well I had no idea we were only one little Republican referendum from turning into North Korea or China.
Your persuasive argument has convinced me.
Kudos to you Dave for bringing this to the public’s attention.
You’ll have to excuse me now, im off to check if there is a Red under my Bed.

jimmy says:

09:42pm | 13/10/09

Barry, for a start I’ll take your wager. How much you offering? I’m under 50 and I’ve heard the anthem. A) Do you think we live under a rock; B) Generally if you’re going to see the London Philarmonic you’re not the under-a-rock type..

But to the thinly disguised argument at hand. We said no to a republic because we decided that if it aint broke don’t fix it. Whilst I don’t agree with all of what you say Dave C, the crux of your argument I agree with totally.. which is, if I’ve read correctly, that we don’t need change for the sake of it (perhaps with unintended consequences in the future) when what we have now works very well.

I’d have to find myself agreeing with Tony Abbott on this one (I know I know, bring out the knives). As outlined in his book in great detail, we have little reason to become a republic other than to seek to write a new constitution that would remove the blame-shifting and bribery that goes on between the Federal and State Governments over funding for health, education etc. etc.
If you really believe that we worship the Queen day and night to our absolute detriment then you live in a very different Australia to the one I do. We know she’s irrelevant. What is relevant is the current parliamentary system and three-tiered Government which largely works well for Australians. It is potentially the least-worst system of Government in the world.
As Abbott sets out, our current constitution is a living document, which means we can vote to change parts of it if we see fit - Not scrap the whole bloody thing and change the system.

Mitch says:

09:45pm | 13/10/09

A few points I’d like to make..

Firstly, while I’m not entirely comfortable with the situation you have described (the playing of another nation’s anthem ahead of our own), I don’t believe that it is as bigger deal as you are making out of it. They are the LONDON Philharmonic Orchestra after all, and could merely have been playing it as a recognition of their nation, rather than anything to do with us. Also, if they have played God Save The Queen instead of AAF then there would really be an issue, but as it is I don’t see it.

Secondly, on the whole republic issue, I believe that the way you come across in this piece is one of the major reasons why the republic effort failed - it was not John Howard’s hijacking (as a citizen of this nation I believe he was entitled to make his views felt, pro-Republicans in his ministry certainly did) but by the elitist attitude of many Republicans, particularly in the media. Don’t you realise that for the majority of Australians this won’t really mean a thing? Carrying on from Dave C’s point, a republic won’t help them make ends meet, put more food on the table, give them better health care, provide a better education system for their children etc. etc. But more than anything that it can do for them, I’m sure many are turned against the issue by the elites TELLING them what’s best for them, what’s best for their country.

IMO, we will become a republic one day (I would suggest after the passing of Queen Elizabeth II) but it will only happen when it is done in a way that engages all Australians into a discussion of our national identity, not being told whats best for them, and what they should think.

Sincerely, a proud member of the Commonwealth of Australia!

Rex says:

10:04pm | 13/10/09

Big Bad Barry ....revealing his convict past methinks, or having a bad hair day?

mid says:

10:48pm | 13/10/09

Dave, think you need to cut back on the red meat there buddy

Philip Crowley says:

11:00pm | 13/10/09

Get over yourself Barry. I believe it is grossly arrogant and deliberately provocative to refer to another country’s national anthem as an, “offensive piece”. How will becoming a republic make Australia a better place to live Barry? How will it make us any prouder of our great nation? I, for one, am tremendously proud of Australia’s record on the world stage, and our international standing. I am thankful for our way of life, our standard of living and the way the nation treats it’s citizens. You seem to be embarrassed about our heritage and think declaring ourselves a republic will somehow make us ‘better’.

Tom says:

12:13am | 14/10/09

Well done Dave C, you came across as a shouty, conservative nonce.

“There was a convention and a question was put to the people and the people rejected it. I suppose that what modern Republicans think of the democratic process dont they.”

“If we have a directly elected President then stand by for Shane Warne, or any popular smuck that the people like. Its democracy remember?”

Way to contradict yourself within 2 paragraphs of your amazingly worded anti-republican diatribe.

davido says:

12:20am | 14/10/09

Is this sort of thing still interesting. Who cares!

Dan says:

12:49am | 14/10/09

Dave C, the referendum failed because the mistake was made of not having a plebicite asking epople whether they wanted a republic, and then offering a choice. Most people want a republic; polls after polls show that.

1)It’s not about change for the sake of it. It’s about growing up, about accepting that we don’t need a monarchy and becoming our own person, so to speak.

2)No, it won’t do all those things, but nobody said it would. Again, it’s about independence.

3)Who said that we have to have a directly elected president? There are several models that we can employ, many of which won’t involve a directly elected president.

4)Are you serious? Let me get this straight. The only thing that prevents us from ebcoming like Nazi Germany is the monarchy? That is absurd. Oh, I love you consistency; you don’t think a republic would fix the economy or the environment but it will turn us into a dictatorship! Here’s a thought. Hitler would have gained power even if Germany was a constitutional monarchy!

5)I don’t know whether to take you seriously. You think that becoming a republic will make us like North Korea or Saddam’s Iraq or the Taliban’s Afghanistan. Right. Whatever you say.

Dave C says:

06:10am | 14/10/09

No Dan your wrong.. so are you Tom in regards to inconsistency

The 1999 referendum asked us if we wanted an El Presedente` sorry President chosen by 2/3 of the Australian Parliament (ok maybe not 2/3 but it was NOT a model advocating a directly elected president rather one appointed by the elected Parliament) and the people rejected it. If we had a plebiscite now many people who voted Yes in 1999 for the model proposed by the ATM will vote NO for the question of “lets have a republic and work out what type of Republic afterwards”??? which is essentially what the Republicans are asking for.

Now you asked ”  Who said that we have to have a directly elected president” well if we dont have the president appointed by the parliament as proposed in 1999 then a directly elected President (I can see it now President Warne) is the only other alternative. How else can the President be decided upon

There was no inconsistency at all to my other arguments. It wont create a single job, help reduce our carbon footprint etc. But if we have a directly elected President (cause we cant have one appointed by Parliament that was rejected in 1999) it will cause massive political instability and if that President decides to sack the Parliament and rule by dictatorship.. well here goes. By the way is the President going to have emergency powers in time of crisis and how are they going to use them and what role will the High Court have and what happens if the Pres and PM clash….... gee aren’t these Republics wonderful things

As for my usage of History consider this. If the German Royal Family has been allowed to continue after WW1 do you think a Kaiser would have allowed Hitler to rise?? It was only when President Hindenburg (who hated Hitler and called him the little Austrian Colonel) died that Hitler took total control. In France and Russia the Communists/Socialists simply butchered their Royal family. Whilst in England after Cromwell died they went back to a Monarchy. Of those countries mentioned which one produced a dictator and which ones haven’t.  Enough said really.

Jimbo says:

09:04am | 14/10/09

A toffee-nosed Republican?
Onya’ Baz and to think the British Royal Family kept the bailiffs from your door.
Such disingenuousness could only emanate from a lefty

Dave C says:

09:59am | 14/10/09

Silly me with typos… not the model proposed by the ATM. I meant the ARM otherwise known as the Australian Republican Movement led my Malcolm Turnbull.

Cooko says:

10:32am | 14/10/09

Don’t they play the national anthem of the visiting nation first at most international sporting events?... Just wondering what the difference is. Or is it just because it’s GSTQ?

Mr Subramanian says:

11:05am | 14/10/09

lol - last time I looked, Prince Phillip thought Hitler was a rather nice chap. Thinking that royalty would have prevented Hitler’s rise is a simplistic as thinking that republics lead to dictatorships, or that the only republican models are that proposed by 1999 or the US system. I’d be more than happy to test Dave C’s theory that a plebiscite on becoming a republic would garner even less support for the republican model proposed in 1999… it would be an ice way to settle that aspect of the debate once and for all.

When QE2, bless her soul, finally does lay down her role, I hope they skip King Charlie altogether and go directly to King William of Australia…

Dan says:

11:08am | 14/10/09

Dave C, considering that the President (should we even have one) would have no more power than the Governor General, who dismissed a democratically elected Prime Minister in 1975, and considering that there are plenty of monarchies who aren’t particularly nice (Saudi Arabia for instance) and also considering that Australia’s protection from turning into a fascist/sommunist dictatorship etc… is due to more than it being a constitutional monarchy, one has to ask; are you on anything?

Ish says:

01:49pm | 14/10/09

I see becoming a republic like Australia putting on big boy pants. Sure we may soil ourselves occasionally but we’ll get there and then it will be second nature.

Roy McKeen says:

08:54pm | 14/10/09

Dave C demeans all Australians when he sarcastically suggests that Shane Warne might become a directly elected president. This is typical of the constitutional amnesia of all Australian monarchists. They can see no worth in their fellow Australians. They have become so accustomed to the forelock tugging, cringeing,curtseying of the ‘O how I hate being an Australian’ mob that they conveniently forget some of the disasters foisted upon Australia by some of our previous monarchs. King Edward VIII, king of Australia, was a Hitler lover calling him ” a great man” and “the saviour of Europe.” When he met Hitler he cried out “Heil Hitler” and gave the Nazi salute. During World War II the Allied security services kept a very close eye on him because of his Nazi sympathies. The present queen of Australia has close connections to the Nazi regime. Philip Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg also known as Mountbatten had two sisters who married Nazis. His youngest sister, Sophie, was married to Prince Christoph of Hesse. He was a Luftwaffe pilot and it was he who, according to British war historian Lord Lambton, piloted the plane that dropped bombs on Buckingham Palace in 1941.  Had it not been for the fact that Christoph of Hesse died for his Fuhrer and the Fatherland in 1944 there is no way that Princess Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha alias Windsor would have been permitted to marry Philip Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg, the latter having a brother-in-law who,had he survived the war, would have been charged with crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg War Trials. Before he died in action Christoph of Hesse fathered as son to Sophie. The son was named Adolf ! He is Queen Elizabeth II’s nephew!!
Another of Philip Schleswig Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg’s sisters, Margarita, married Prince Hohenlohe von Langenberg, a grandson of Queen Victoria. He was a Panzer Division commander on the western front whose troops fought and killed many Allied troops including Diggers. Prior to her wedding to Philip our present queen asked that her Nazi in-laws be permitted to attend the wedding. The British government put her in her place by refusing such an odious request.
King Edward VII, king of Australia was a renowned whoremonger. Australia’s first monarch, George III, a most unfortunate man, was insane.
If the people of Australia decide to elect an Australian as head of state of Australia rather than a foreigner there are many fine Australians of the calibre of John Landy, Marjorie Jackson(both state governors), the late Don Bradman, Sir Zelman Cowen and, yes, Shane Warne who are all people who have achieved something in their lives by merit, talent and sheer hard work and who do not carry the stigma of the Nazi connection and The Holocaust.
I feel sorry for Auystralian monarchists. By their devotion to the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg regime they betray everything that Australia stands for viz.  the rule of law, democracy and the fair-go. That is why I say that monarchists suffer from constitutional amnesia. We may laugh at them but we should also pity them. Roll on an Australian republic and a democratically elected head of state !

Alex Fishburn says:

06:01pm | 15/10/09

Notice that Barry doesn’t actually say he attended the concert. This sounds like a rehash of an article by Michael Shmith in the Age of 13th October.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/god-save-us-from-these-old-royal-refrains-20091012-gtx6.html

Oh I get it. This is a spoof right? Like Bob Ellis (it’s those initials)?

Lyn P says:

08:48pm | 15/10/09

Well Dave C you either don’t know your history or you are spinning a monarchist line, because those that were involved, know that it was an ‘engineered’ convention designed to push the issue off the agenda. The nasty games played ensured that a humungus wedge was inserted between the direct electionists and those that favoured a ‘politicians’ head of state. 

There were direct electionists that sided with the monarchists, believing they would get another chance to get the model they desired. They ensured the model would fail. The republicans made errors too because they did not engage with ordinary Australians enough and there was an ‘elitist’ air about the debate.  A single model should never have been put to the people initially.

You cannot use that cynical exercise as justification for the republican debate today. Are you afraid that the polling that consistently shows Australians are in favour of a Republic might be right? What harm is there in engaging in the debate and educating Australians about the sort of democracy we have, and then letting them decide if they want change.

I don’t care about all the scaremongering that is replicated on blogs such as this. They are merely attempts by those too scared to ask the simple question “Do you want an Australian as our Head of State”  If the answer is yes, then we can talk to Australians about how they want that to come about.

Cart before the horse people!

Alex Fishburn says:

03:21pm | 16/10/09

@Lyn P. Look at the votes for the model. The convention’s proceedings were recorded in Hansard so this is easy to do. A whole bunch of models were put to the vote and the loser in each round was knocked out. The Turnbull model was in the lead the whole time. The monarchists abstained from the vote. Clearely therefore the Turnbull model was the one the rpeublicans wanted to put to Australia. And obviously it was the model that lost. Give up. And we already have an Australian Head of State - it’s called the Governor General - ask Kevin Rudd.