The Prince William effect: republican celebrity converts

Liz says:

07:50am | 18/01/10

So the Royals pay for the tour each time they come here do they? It’s time we grew up and got our Independance,what do we need the Royals for? We need a new flag without that bit in the corner..what has Britain ever done for us but let us down in war,trade you name it?

Matt says:

08:08am | 18/01/10

Answers to Flint’s questinos:

(a) just what precisely is wrong with one of the world’s most successful constitutions:
This is pretty easy - our head of state is not Australian. Don’t give us the Royalist line about the GG being the real head of state, she’s not - the Queen is.

(b) how she proposes that should be remedied:

Pretty easy really - constitutional change via a referendum. It’s something our constitution allows, although it’s a bit less wet than the traditional English way of removing monarchs (see William II, Edward II, Henry VI, Richard III, Charles I etc).

(c) what new flag she is proposing:

I reckon the current flag’s an ok compromise, although the Eureka flag is a cracker. It’s certainly up there with the Canadian flag.

(d) how much this will cost:

A few mil, probably. Worthwhile asking, however, what the cost will be if we DON’T change. What’s the price of self-esteem?

Hope that helps you out David. Now go back to tugging your forelock, or whatever it is you royalists tug.

SLF says:

09:09am | 18/01/10

I really struggle to understand why Australian’s have such a chip on their shoulder about the monachy. Maybe as an new Australian I can enlighten a few people as to the real perception of things.

Does the world view Australia as part of the UK? No.
Does the world think the Queen is in charge of Australia? No
Does the world think that Australia is in leaguie with the UK and totally beholden to them? No, they all know that is what we are to the USA.

Australia does not need to grow up, it is a modern, confident democracy, which is only linked to the UK by a shared history, commonality of values and a familiar face on a coin or two. In many ways it would be sad to see the history done away with because of a lack of self confidence on our part.

As for the flag, I think we keep the stars and move them to where the Union Jack is and then we would maybe have some nice stripes, maybe green and gold across the rest of the flag. We could also change our name to the United States of Australia.

stu says:

11:08am | 18/01/10

Sarah Palin. William Windsor. Can you spot the difference?

AT says:

11:22am | 18/01/10

Dear Prof. David E Flint AM,

A goodly portion of your article is a petulant and snide swipe at “Ms. Ita Clare Buttrose AO OBE”. The rest is a cheap shot at a journo and a preposterous claim that editorial space in British newspapers equates to tourism dollars for Australia.

With all due respect to Ita Buttrose, she’s hardly a significant figure in the republic debate or much of anything else these days. That you choose to ridicule her to further your cause reflects rather poorly you, Davo, and its personal and vindictive nature exposes the tawdriness of the debating platform creaking under your shoes.

You zero in on one solitary sentence in the “aristocratically named Sarrah Le Marquand” piece where she says “we don’t need to continue picking up the tab for the lavish lifestyle of the Windsor family…”, that hoary old chestnut? Don’t you have any counter arguments for the vast bulk of the story which discredits the monarchists’ campaign tactics? Tactics you’re persisting with here.

Most despairing of all is your claim that the cost of accommodating Prince William during his visit will be offset by an influx of tourists. Mate, the fuel bill alone for security helicopters will exceed the A$45,000 Times full-page ad rate. And you reckon his visit is already getting “worldwide media attention”!? Really? — “We interrupt our coverage of Haiti to bring you urgent news of an impending visit to Australia…” — Yeah, undoubtedly.

The only way he’s going to get “worldwide media attention” for Australia is if he’s photographed shickered or shagging a strumpet. You may care to suggest to our future head of state that he does just that, in the interests of his loyal antipodean subjects.

While your at it, Professor Flint, you might also counsel him to stop actively sabotaging a far more lucrative potential income earner for Australia — the football World Cup. If you wanna talk about getting “worldwide media attention”, it doesn’t get any wider or more attentive than the World Cup and the income is measured in billions. Your bonny prince has been promoting the English hosting bid ahead of Australia’s. How do you reconcile this betrayal, Mr Flint?

If there’s any persuasive and credible argument for contemporary Australia retaining the monarchy, it’s not presented in this article. Indeed, that argument is not presented anywhere, it always appears to be incapable of transcending the same petty disposition of this article’s author. Highlights just how moribund the notion is.

Yours Sincerely,

AT (untitled)

Soultrader says:

02:11pm | 18/01/10

@Peter
I agree with you about T.Chong but I think TC must sniff something to come up with the rubbish that TC does come up with. But note, TC is so far left of normality, TC is about to disappear through KR’s halo.

Macon Paine says:

09:01am | 19/01/10

AT says:05:00pm | 18/01/10

“Mate, there’s ALWAYS “far more pressing issues to be dealt with”. The proposition that whether Aust is a republic or monarchy means very little to people might be true, but why is that statement is usually made in defence of retaining the monarchy? A republican could just as easily say the same thing in support of a republic, couldn’t they?”
Ever heard of the saying “if it aint broke dont fix it”? It’s cliched but it’s true and the proposition is very simple. Offer the people something better or dont waste our time.

“Republicans did not have a chance to present a “legitimate alternative” in ‘99. The electorate had chance to vote on the proposal coming out of the John Howard devised multi-million dollar constitutional convention. There’s “an idiotic waste of time” for you.”
Cry me a river mate the turnbull republicans stuffed it up big time, the elitists voted on the model they went to the refendum with, deal with it. If the majority of Australians support a republic yet still voted against becoming one, then clearly there is something very wrong with the model they offered. Of course the republicans would except none of the blame, it was all John Howards fault. Which of the 4 models from the constitutional convention do you support? Or do you support another model? And do you think Howard rigged the referendum with the wording of the question?

“If you despair at the prospect of a King Chuck/Billy/Eddy and decry ‘Australians not having a say in its head of state’ might you actually be a republican at heart? Wouldn’t you welcome the opportunity to elect Australia’s head of state? Shouldn’t you therefore be promoting a direct election model for the president of an Australian republic?

Yes thats true I support a republic but only if it is through the popular vote model. Yes and thats why I voted NO in the referendum of 99, why did the republicans not offer us the popular vote model? It would have got up.
And who says im not? My original comments where intended to simply decry the foolishness and elitism of the republican movement for going with that blockheaded model. You seem to have taken particular offence at them so im happy. If only they’d listened 11 years ago…...

“In answer to the question “what will it do?”, I guess it will ease the slight discomfort you seem to express at the current arrangements, for one thing. But as you seem to think it’s meaningless and a waste of time, probably you shouldn’t say anything at all, don’t express your opinion, just remain quiet and accept that your head of state will be the English monarch until such time as the Poms decide otherwise.”

Perhaps but only if it’s the correct model. If we where to become a republic using anything other than the popular vote model, I’d actually feel more discomfort than I do now. The debate is meaningless because the republicans simply dont get it, they cant even agree on a model. They deserve to be lambasted from pillar to post.
Wrong, our head of state will be the English monarch until the republicans start listening. Perhaps getting them to listen though is what is really “an idiotic waste of time”.

Alistair says:

03:46pm | 19/01/10

AT, there’s an old saying that “winners blame themselves and losers blame everyone else.”
It rings particularly true in your statements about John Howard and feeble attempt to blame him for the defeat of the Republican cause in 1999. Following the convention, Howard gave the voting public a referendum on the issue (which is more than Rudd has done) and they rejected it. Why don’t you just blame the Australian people because they disagreed with you?
Your total lack of appreciation for the “ain’t broke” rationale belies an ignorance of political culture in Australia. We are not given to extremes of behaviour and we don’t change things on a whim, especially institutions that have been proven effective over a long period of time. The cause of Australia becoming a Republic is totally unnecessary unless you happen to believe there are serious problems with the status quo.

Macon Paine says:

09:03am | 20/01/10

@ Alistair
Well said, though I fear AT is one of those die hard, “change for the sake of change” republicans.

@ AT, with all due respect, turn it up! You have demonstrated in your replies that you simply dont get it. That is anything other than the popular vote model is an insult to the people and not worth the effort. Your claim that I am “defending the monarchy” is an obvious strawman. At no point did I defend the monarchy, nice try though.
Why are you unable to accept any criticism of the republican movement? I have offered my critique of the movement and you say “Blame John Howard”. Goading me into blaming John Howard is not going to work because it’s not his fault, you need to come to terms with this fact. Actually your statement “blame John Howard, he’s the one who devised the convention and determined the method of appointing delegates.”  is an example of a “post hoc fallacy”.
Ultimately this argument is pointless because you are attempting to turn the focus of the debate back onto me and this could be considered a “red herring”.
This indicates to me that you could be one of the very elitists that im decrying, denying accountability at every opportunity and shifting the blame in a manner Malcolm Turnbull would be proud of.
As i said before “The debate is meaningless because the republicans simply dont get it, they cant even agree on a model. They deserve to be lambasted from pillar to post.”.