Until last evening, I hadn’t seen The King’s Speech with Geoffrey Rush, Colin Firth and company. Usually watch some shoot-‘em up over a red wine or three. Good movie. I enjoyed it. Whether the dialogue between the King and Lionel Logue is remotely close to the truth I doubt, but the substance of the plotline is right I surmise. Anyway, gave it 4½ out of 5.
I’m an out-and-out monarchist, when I’m being my English self. When I’m being my Australian self I can see the other side much more favourably. I would probably vote for a republic, certainly give it close consideration, if the model was OK and encompassed state governors as well as the governor general. Think it would be anomalous to have a president with state governors reporting to the King still in place.
Stan Grant I suspect would vote for a republic. Just a wild guess. I didn’t see the ABC coverage of the coronation, thankfully. Might have sent me over the edge by all accounts. I watched the BBC. Have to say, as tendentiously left-green-leaning as it has become, it still does these events superbly well. The lady hosts dress beautifully and modestly and speak so well and the commentators know when to keep shtum; and not chatter continuously. It’s always a pleasure to hear Standard English. My home town of Liverpool in England and my current home of Sydney, both in their own unique way mangle the pronunciation of the King’s English. I can only assume My Fair Lady has not been widely seen and appreciated in either place.
A problem always is the company you keep. If I were to vote on the republican side I would know that Stan Grant, Craig Foster, Malcolm Turnbull, Peter Fitzsimons, Phillip Adams, perhaps Lidia Thorpe, and many others with views distinctly different from mine, abhorrent views in fact, were on my side of the fence. And, horrifyingly, I would be on theirs. I would probably need to be counselled to quell the onset of cognitive dissonance.
I would be rather in the position of those mediocre male sportsmen who want to be women but who clearly hate women. Evidenced by them subsequently beating the pants off women at women’s sports events. Gloating, as they stand tall and muscled on the centre podium while, if they’re lucky and have faced only one female wannabe, some smaller built women accept the crumbs; and have to smile, lest they be shunned. Maybe it’s not quite a close parallel, but I couldn’t resist it.
A thought. Is there anyone who is pro the monarchy on the pro green, left or Voice side of things? I dare say that some (genuine) conservatives are in favour of Australia becoming a republic. As I’ve said, I’m this way and that way. But I tend to doubt whether any on the dark side of the political divide (as I put it) are monarchists. These people live and breathe their credo, every waking and probably sleeping hour. Tearing western values down, and patriotism to boot, is the name of their game. Upholding any western tradition or institution is anathema to them. Of course, the global utopia which is their plan, if they have any plan at all, would turn into a dystopian nightmare. On reflection, I think I’ll vote for the monarchy if it comes up again, just to spite them.
I’m not so much a monarchist, rather than a “don’t break Humpty-Dumpty, then allow people like Fitzsimian, Keating, Turnbull, Linda Burney, Albanese, Plibersek, et al, to put him back together again”
Bar Beach Swimmer has said it best:
to those who support constitutional change, I would say, “please shut up until you have a model that works at least as good as, if not better than, the system we have”.
It is disappointing when Australians talk about a republic as merely involving a change in the head of state with some necessary fiddling about with the constitution to accomodate that, but otherwise leaving as much as possible untouched. That is a guarantee that we will continue to get bad, probably worse, government.
Republicanism is different ethos from constitutional monarchy, and the debate around it would provide an opportunity to discuss what a future Australia should look like in terms of the duties & rights of citizenship, equality before the law and the introduction of mechanisms which would make our parliaments, executive & judiciary more accountable to a better informed citizenry.
Just to be picky: “Tearing western values down” can only succeed if it is unopposed. Effectively, measurably, & intentionally opposed I mean.
The same applies to any proposal to change our system of government.
If you’re playing chess, for example, & you simply choose & move your pieces at random, the outcome is unlikely to be favourable, unless your opponent happens to be even less committed than you are to winning.
Could vote for a republic if citizens selected the Prez and also had the option of sending issues to NACC or similar based on a collecting 100k or so of signatures. As I consider the challenge of keeping the buggers honest 100X harder than current system.
I’m a monarchist except that my monarch is God the Sovereign Lord Almighty.
All human Monarchs, Presidents and Prime Ministers are subject to advisement.
I have to say that the monarchical model espoused by Elizabeth II was pretty good.
Charles I’m not so sure of.
Yet you started a spiteful, invidious, knock down, drag ’em out argument with me over the public having the power to use the power of initiative and referenda, but only to strike down bad legislation, not write new laws (so collect say 280k signatures (~2% of voters) and then it goes to a vote to be struck off the books); you said it was going to be a “new arm of the state” that would damage democracy and freedom.
Speaking of the Left, does this sound familiar in 2023 Australia:
https://capforcanada.com/globalist-agenda-phase-two-trudeau-creates-social-chaos-in-canada/
Dot> I think you are projecting, as you do, based on your side of the earlier discussion. One from which you appear to still be upset about not “winning”
A CIR and the capacity to send issues to NACC via petition are quite different, one refers to issues and the other to individuals. And this is in context of changing to a republic where more extreme measures to keep the political class in control are required in my opinion.
Neat summary of my own thoughts on the matter. Not a fan of Charlie3 but I cannot bring to mind a single person in Oz who, craving the power it would bring will throw their hat into the ring, that would provide a more competent, stable alternative to the status quo.
Shame so many dunderheads are committed to tearing down with no thought for the consequences.
Yes, like rejecting a bad law which Parliament, who act as our agents on our behalf, can pass, against the will of the electorate, for the benefit of the few and representative democracy can not address because of the median voter problem.
Literally voting against a bad law was characterised by you as an “undemocratic arm of the state”.
…but you’re willing to make investigative references in the same manner of petition and to directly elect the head of state?
Sheer bloody minded madness.
Perhaps if we vote for a President, it should be for a set period, perhaps 1 – 2 years? They can nominate again and if they are doing a good job, they may get re-elected.
Also, every eligible adult citizen should be automatically nominated (just putting it out there for discussion). I’m trying to think of way s that the elites’ choices aren’t the only ones that get to the top.
Also, I don’t want TV Week or New Idea to be the kingmakers as it were.
It seems to me with our current system that it isn’t the person in the hotseat that is the most important but the safeguards in place as the processes of governmental oversight. We just need to tighten it up and put real penalties in place for politicians (decimation is my starting point) and seriously curtail the overreach of government.
I don’t think either the constitutional monarchical system or the constitutional republican system have succeeded.
The rot goes deep.
We should have never even become a Federation. Confederalism would have avoided the sinkhole that is Canberra.
The States should have had a State Governor/Premier rotate into the Presidency/PMship every two years. That State executive holds limited national government powers (legitimate ones like defence and external affairs) for two years. National laws can be made by interstate treaty like the Swiss allow. We simply don’t need that many national laws so it isn’t important.
Dot> I mentioned election for head of state and petitions of 100k+ to NACC for members of the political class. Read a little more before you comment as your feedback is not accurate. As mentioned the capacity to elect directly & petition to NACC or similar was in response to a future republic. If you can suggest better options for a republic with oversight and some level of control by citizens, please do so.
I think Dot and Alamak should get a room, as they say.
Meanwhile back to the Republic debate, how can any sensible debate take place until the details of the type of republic to replace our current system are spelt out.
Do the proponents want the type of republic in South Korea or in North Korea, in Germany or Argentina, in the USA or France, China or the Congo?
There are plenty to choose from but they are all so very different.
My personal favourite is Switzerland but I suspect our politicians would never allow a system that gives so much power to ordinary citizens.
Oh god, Homer Paxton is back.
No no. The republic debate can be as narrow as the head of state or very wide. I suggest we go on the classical route.
Sortition
Term limits
Subsidiarity
Confederalism
Recall elections
Jury nullification
CIR to vote down bad laws
Sunset clauses on all legislation
The simplest thing we could do is choose the Irish model, I’m fine with the Swiss one too.
I’m going wide on this.
No Federal government. The Presidency rotates between the states every two years.
I’d have 5 year terms for the lower house and the upper house appointed by the lower house in a half rotation in each state.
Once picked by sortition, a candidate needs to be approved by the local council and their electorates.
Local councils picked by sortition but also with “town hall” procedures. So you get participatory democracy.
The head of state of each state and head of government are separate. The President/Governor has their own board which can veto them but most power rests in an appointed Premier/PM who can hold that position without any term limit (the only position in the system like it).
Term limits for the judiciary and governors/executive board.
National law can be created by inter state treaty and High Court of Australia can consist of a panel of the State appellate judges.
Dot> Thanks for sharing a set of ideas for operating under a republic. I’d agree with most if not all but it’s unlikely to ever happen due to a) an entire ruling class wedded to the benefits, power and pay offered by a federal level of government b) Aussies ain’t Swiss and seem to be happy for now accepting the dictates of government in most areas of life and having no formal rights. Some large event might shake them out of this state e.g. power failure on large scale, war in the region, currency crisis.
Or, realise we’ve been blessed with a Consitutional Monarchy which is the best form of Government that the world has come up with to date. The pure existence of the Crown (regardless of who it is) prevents the troublemakers getting unfettered power. I can’t find a Republic in the entire World whose system I would rather live under.
Constitutional monarchy is a very broad term, Bagehot called the English system a Crowned republic; the US Presidential-Congressional system of government is more like the system of government before the confirmation of Parliamentary supremacy with the triennial acts, but with an elected head of state and government.
I would say the Icelandic Commonwealth had the best system of government.
Well, unfortunately…
Marxism
COVIDmania
The progressive Cathedral
Progressivism
The WEF and technocratic transhumanism
Are all western values, like the idea that King Charles III stops Anthony Albanese turning into Mussolini.
PS
Mussolini was not stopped by a constitutional monarchy. The Italians were so disgusted with the King and Crown Prince’s complicity with Mussolini they abolished the monarchy that founded modern Italy.
COVIDmania showed that Humpty was dead, buried, exhumed and defiled.
Sortition
Term limits
Subsidiarity
Confederalism
Recall elections
Jury nullification
CIR to vote down bad laws
Sunset clauses on all legislation
We’ve got Jury Nullification now.
It sounds like you want to compel Juries to announce that they’re applying Nullification in a particular case.
That’s Nuttery on stilts.
I’m seeing that Cromwell’s Commonwealth was a Republic.
So, we’ve already got a Republic.
Wassat you say, Skippy? Every Australian child must have an equal chance of becoming Head Of State?
So, some kid born yesterday on Elcho Island who will never learn to read or speak English is gonna have exactly the same chance of becoming Head Of State as some kid born yesterday in Bellevue Hill whose name is already down for membership of the M.C.G.
Gimme a break, you brain dead wallaby.
At the heart of the quandry is that neither a constitutional monarchy or republic have proven to be sufficient to keep government at bay.
The problems America is facing are no less than ours. Their checks and balances have failed entirely. Sorry 2a and the US military.
In our case, I would have thought the covid hysteria and overreach would have had the GG reaching for the quill. But no.
With the people and the supposed protectors of the respective constitutions unable or unwilling to do anything perhaps the best we can hope for is a benevolent dictator?
Sortition …
What Dot says
Divide the power up so finely everyone has some but no one can ever exercise more than a finite amount for a short period of time, subject to many levels of institutional and democratic consent.
The current system has directed jury verdicts, jury nullification removes that as well as giving sensible flexibility to the law where exceptions cannot practically be written in; if the law is really bad, people won’t get found guilty.
Being opposed to juries (representative of a community standard more than one or a few members of Parliament from where the jury is pooled) asserting that a law is so bad it shouldn’t be on the books is anti democratic and patronising. Opposition to it is against democratic principles.
The current system has directed jury verdicts, jury nullification removes that …
Yeah, the Jury is directed to find the person Not Guilty.
Why would anyone outside of a madhouse want to remove that?
Jury Nullification means that the Jury disregards the evidence and finds the accused Not Guilty.
What you’re proposing is that Jury Verdicts can be nullified.
“Jury nullification means they can make up their own mind”
The next sentence.
“What you’re proposing is that juries lose their independence”
LOL, you plonker.
Jury nullification explained to the masses to ameliorate idiot government worshipper Ed’s lies:
https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/jury-nullification-faq/what-is-jury-nullification.html
What is jury nullification?
In its strictest sense, jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a Not Guilty verdict even though jurors believe beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law. Because the Not Guilty verdict cannot be overturned, and because the jurors cannot be punished for their verdict, the law is said to be nullified in that particular case.
In what can be said to be a milder form of jury nullification, some of the jurors, or even just one in most cases, can hang the jury by maintaining a Not Guilty verdict even though they believe the defendant broke the law. There is no requirement that jurors must come to a unanimous verdict. If the jury cannot unanimously agree on a verdict of either Guilty or Not Guilty, this is known as a hung jury. When further deliberation clearly will be unproductive, the judge will declare a mistrial. The prosecution may or may not retry the case in the future, but the law has at least been nullified in the trial at hand.
Former prosecutor and current Georgetown University Law Center professor Paul Butler has dubbed another variation on this theme to be “jury nullification 2.0”. He used this term in reference to the case of Touray Cornell, a Missoula, Montana man charged with possession of 1/16th of an ounce of marijuana in a county that had passed a citizen initiative instructing law enforcement to make marijuana enforcement their lowest priority. Of 27 potential jurors questioned during voir dire, only five said they would vote to convict a person of possession of such a small amount of marijuana. Skeptical that it would even be possible to seat a jury, the judge in the case called a recess during which time the lawyers worked out a deal known as an “Alford plea” in which the defendant didn’t admit guilt.
When these kinds of rejections of enforcement of laws stack up over time, the laws become unenforceable. We’ve seen this rejection of the Fugitive Slave Laws and alcohol prohibition, for example, undermine such laws’ enforcement. Eventually, it is no longer worth the time or hassle or embarrassment for government officials to try to enforce these laws. They may be further nullified in a sense either remaining on the books but not being enforced or being repealed altogether.
When jurors in capital cases convict the accused and find in the sentencing phase of the trial that the necessary conditions have been met to impose the death penalty, but choose instead to sentence them to life without parole, this may also be referred to as jury nullification.
Other terms you may hear in place of jury nullification are conscientious acquittal, juror veto, or jury pardon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#United_States
Juries across the North acquitted defendants who had clearly breached the Fugitive Slave Act in the 1850s. Part of the Compromise of 1850, it had been passed to mollify Southern slaveowners, who were otherwise threatening to secede from the Union.
Secretary of State Daniel Webster was a key supporter of the law as expressed in his famous “Seventh of March” speech. He wanted high-profile convictions, but the jury nullifications ruined his presidential aspirations and his last-ditch efforts to find a compromise between North and South. Webster led the prosecution when defendants were accused of rescuing Shadrach Minkins in 1851 from Boston officials who intended to return Minkins to his owner. The juries convicted none of the men. Webster tried to enforce a law that was extremely unpopular in the North, and his Whig Party passed over him again when it chose a presidential nominee in 1852.
…and now why you also need recall elections:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#State_laws
On June 18, 2012, New Hampshire passed a law explicitly allowing defense attorneys to inform juries about jury nullification.[62] On October 24, 2014, the New Hampshire Supreme Court effectively nullified the law and held that the wording of the statute does not allow defense attorneys to tell juries they can nullify a law.
Everyone continues to say what they would ideally like – and, of course, it is always different, in detail or in broad scope, from what everyone else likes. It is a distraction, to the extent that such specifics would never make it to an actual referendum. It is an academic debate of no practical value.
The point is that there must be a publicly agreed alternative to the current constitution. It took a decade of conventions, against a combination of general public opposition/apathy (sound familiar?), before our present model was agreed to – and even then, a number of referenda during 1898 and 1899 – before agreement was reached.
In practice, since then, there have been many republics established around the world and the easiest course would be to have a public convention that looked objectively at them all and decided to adopt one of them (with maybe a few agreed tweaks). Good luck with that, of course. At least, 100 odd years ago, we seemed to have largely honest and honourable politicians with the welfare of the country as their aim. They certainly looked good compared to today’s bunch.
The conclusion to draw is that we either stick with what we have, which does seem to work quite well, or trust the politicians and activists to produce one for us. Is anyone in this day and age happy with that alternative??!!!
Dot
Local councils picked by sortition but also with “town hall” procedures. So you get participatory democracy.
It is a regrettable inevitability that “town hall” procedures and participatory democracy give a clear advantage to the political obsessives of the rabid fascist left. To get true participatory democracy, the whole community must the inspired to participate, not only leftards.
Remember, non-leftards have lives, leftards have politics. The relative numbers of non-leftards who actively participate in on-line forums and political parties are an indication of this reality.
I think a lot of those pro-republic people you dread finding yourself on the same side as have very specific styles of republic in mind. They are not looking for a system of merely transferring the work currently undertaken by the GG and giving it to a locally appointed President.
They want an activist President. One that will give them more power over the ideological enemies. One that would block any law or measure that the progressives did not want, and one that would use any overextension of their own power to aid the progressives.
See, the right just wants things to work and to be left alone. They are not looking for ways to force the left to do anything (except perhaps to stop them from foisting more of their doctrines and fads on the right). The right is not trying to force the left into right wing behaviours.
So what a progressive would want from a President would be very different to what a conservative would. The right wants someone…grey, a bit boring, dignified, and attentive to forms and procedures of the office without thinking that it is their office to use as they will.
The left want someone in a Che T-shirt who marches for whatever cause du jour they are telling us they have always been fighting for.
I want all of government to be grey, a bit boring and dignified!
Mother Lode
They want an activist President. One that will give them more power over the ideological enemies. One that would block any law or measure that the progressives did not want, and one that would use any overextension of their own power to aid the progressives.
Dot mentioned the Irish Constitution up-thread. Remember Mary Robinson as Irish President as an ‘orrible example of an “activist president”.
It works well in American towns. If they’re leftist they elect leftist officials anyway.
There are a wide variety of ways it is used in New England, the liberal States and more conservative States have it, but it tends to be used for smaller communities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_meeting#New_Hampshire
…and the King is a horrible green activist, who you cannot vote out.
But whose powers are limited, unless he has a supine government.
You give all the examples [according to you] of Jury Nullification.
So, even by your admission, Jury Nullification exists and works well.
Why then, do you propose Jury Nullification in your Lolbertarian Utopia, when it already exists and functions well?
The Irish President’s powers are always limited.
Yes Ed, we know you’re a sarcastic, freedom hating left wing turd.
You’ve been on this blog in various guises, under tens of lame sockpuppets, now doing a very bad kayfabe of a “typical boomer conservative”, even crying about Ricky Slater, Grey Nurse sharks and other bizarre things normal people don’t care about, in between having a fetish for abusing women online.
Because it would be necessary for it to exist and to continue to exist.
Henry Parkes is probably correctly described as the father of the nation, I would have thrown my lot in with him in NSW I reckon.
His life outside politics was bit of a shambles. Honest and honourable? Hmmmm.
Because it would be necessary for it to exist and to continue to exist.
Huh?
This is extremely suspicious reasoning.
Nullification will exist as long as Juries exist.
Patently dishonest.
There is this man who was persecuted and his civil liberties were violated:
https://reason.com/2022/08/05/he-was-arrested-for-promoting-jury-nullification-a-federal-court-says-that-was-illegal/
A man was wrongfully arrested for standing outside a Bronx courthouse handing out flyers about jury nullification, the practice where juries render “not guilty” verdicts despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, a federal court confirmed last week.
A man was wrongfully arrested for standing outside a Bronx courthouse handing out flyers about jury nullification, the practice where juries render “not guilty” verdicts despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, a federal court confirmed last week.
Huh?
The man wasn’t wrongfully arrested.
He broke the law.
Jury Nullification proceeds from the Jury, not from the photocopier of some bowtied dickhead with a signed photo of Trotsky on the wall.
Grandpa Ed Simpson still shilling for collectivism.
As a resident of Bellevue Hill, I have to object. No one here would be seen at the MCG. The Australian Club is our bolt hole.
My mistake, Rococo dude.
Let’s call it Camberwell instead.
Mussolini was not stopped by a constitutional monarchy.
Mussolini was extremely popular, he was dismissed by a board acting on behalf of the King
The Italians were so disgusted with the King and Crown Prince’s complicity with Mussolini they abolished the monarchy that founded modern Italy.
Total bullshit.
King decided to switch sides same as he did in WW1.
Mussolini is a hero in Italy to this day, his descendants sit in the Parliament.
1
So you’re against free speech?
Which is why the Italians hanged him.
Boambee John> . has seen these questions on how well (or not) sortition, citizens referendums etc would work in practice. Like the Bourbons he learns nothing and forgets nothing.
Communist partisans murdered Mussolini.
Were they Italians?
Probably not.
So you’re against free speech?
Let me put it this way:
Lenin said:
The Capitalist will sell us the rope we use to hang them.
You say:
Gimme that rope, bigot, and kindly stick your head in this noose.
Alamak!
What are you on about?
Ed Casesays:
May 16, 2023 at 7:58 am
Communist partisans murdered Mussolini.
Were they Italians?
Probably not.
Grandpa Ed Simpson goes the “No true Italian ….” path.
Mussolini started his political career as a communist.
Don’t worry, he’s an idiot. To wit: “a negative CIR would become an antidemocratic arm of the State!”.
It is laughable how Ed Case/Septimus/Grigory M exhibits oppositional defiance as some sort of mental illness to “own” conservative and libertarian commentators and discussion.
Execution of Mussolini, as carried out by Italian communist partisans.
Ordered by: Luigi Longo and Palmiro Togliatti
Execution (shooting) carried out by: Walter Audisio and Aldo Lampredi along with Michele Moretti, Bellini delle Stelle and Urbano Lazzaro.
Boambee John> Was pointing out that Dot misreads, misquotes and misunderstands others day after day after day. When any of this is pointed out he simply projects and posts made up quotes demonstrating his genuis skillz in in online debate. Tendentious to a T and nothing more.
I don’t want to “debate”, I want a discussion but we routinely have to put up with trolls like you.