Should Australia be a Republic? - Page 18

Ziggy Stardust · #**171** (**permalink**) 03-12-2009, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cenydd

I don't see any reason why becoming a republic, and abandoning the idea of having the Queen of England as head of state, should change anything in terms of alliances. I don't think that in practise it will make any difference either way - their Queen is effectively your Head of State in name only. I do see why you might decide that having that situation is outdated and irrelevant and should be changed, but I don't think anybody will be offended by that (in fact, the English Queen has already said that she wouldn't be).

One request from this side of the world though - please stop using UK, Britain and England interchangably - they are not the same thing at all!

I don't think it is "out dated". It works well, so leave it well alone. If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it, etc, etc.

And... I know the difference between Great Britain and England. I used them perfectly appropriately so I have no idea what you are blithering about, unless you are referring to someone else.

I didn't say anyone would be "offended" I said that if we were to break with the commonwealth we would just become more and more Americanised. Our politics, our TV, our language! I would rather be a part of the Commonwealth than the 52nd state of America. Of course we would still be "friends" with the commonwealth, I would just prefer to be in it.

It is inevitable that we will become a Replublic of course but I don't see any benefit from it personally.

Peter Dow · #**172** (**permalink**) 03-13-2009, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrian Wainer

The choice of, whether Australia should be a republic or a monarchy, is a decision for the citizens of Australia, the citizens of the United Kingdom and the citizens of the British Commonwealth. My belief is that, it is right and proper that Australia should have a Monarch, for the reason it has inherited this from British Anglo-Saxon traditions and Anglo Saxon culture is still very much part of modern Australia. Also, in the context that modern Australia is very much in Asia both geography and culturally, having a Monarch as head of state, fits very well with Asian traditions, for example in both Thailand and Japan, the Monarchy is a hugely respected institution. From a moral perspective, to take an example how a Monarchy can be a force for good, in the case of the Japanese diplomat Chiune Sugihara, I believe that Mr Sugihara's decision to assist the Jewish refugees, was in part based on the perception that, whilst helping the Jewish refugees might have very serious consequences for him up to and including his own death, he believed helping the refugees would be, what the Emperor of Japan would want him to do and therefor it was in part Mr Sugihara's loyalty to the Emperor, which was responsible for the rescue of, these Jewish refugees.

YouTube - A JAPANESE HOLOCAUST RESCUER

YouTube - *Wildlife MV Spirit(HQ)- Red-crowned Crane HOKKAIDO Japan

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Whilst it is by no means true that "monarchist = pro-Nazi, anti-Semite" because many monarchists across the world fought the Nazis, the fact was that Imperial Japan (and its Emperor presumably) sided with the Nazis and must share responsibility for the holocaust.

However, the rise of the Nazis to power in Germany and their initial military successes was of course more the fault of European monarchists than Japanese monarchists.

I say "European monarchists" and not just German monarchists are at fault because the European royal families tended to intermarry with each other a fair bit.

Wikipedia: Prince Christoph of Hesse

Wikipedia: Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Marriage

American Almanac: The Nazi Roots of the House of Windsor

Aftermath News: The Nazi relative that the Royals disowned

The Daily Express: PRINCE PHILIP AND THE NAZIS

The Royals and the Reich. The Princes von Hessen in Nazi Germany by Jonathan Petropoulos

Jonathan Petropoulos, in his book "Royals and the Reich" reviews the case that the Duke of Windsor was a traitor and an agent for Nazi Germany which was made by Martin Allen in his book "Hidden Agenda. How the Duke of Windsor Betrayed the Allies".

Quote:

Author Martin Allen goes much further than this, arguing in his controversial book, Hidden Agenda, that the duke spied for Hitler, especially in the critical phase in late-1939 and early-1940 prior to the Battle of France.

According to Allen, the duke made inspection tours of the French army's front line positions, including the Maginot line, and provided reports of troop deployments not only to the British (French-British co-operation not being what it should have been), but also to the Germans.

The link between the duke and the Nazis, according to Allen, was wealthy American industrialist Charles Bedaux (sometimes spelled Bedault), who was a close friend of the Windsors. Bedaux had loaned them his home, chateau Cande in France, for their wedding in June 1937, and he was almost certainly a Nazi intelligence asset; he knew Goring personally and had many German business contacts.

Martin Allen goes so far as to argue that the Duke of Windsor provided Bedaux with the crucial information about the French deployment, that this information, when passed on, induced Hitler to take the bold move and invade France through the poorly defended Ardennes forest, and that this is the primary explanation for the stunning Nazi victory in May-June 1940.

It is a devastating indictment: the Duke of Windsor was not only a traitor but the main reason for the German victory in the West and all that came with it (occupation, the Battle of Britain, and the persecution of Jews in these regions, among other developments).

Peter Dow · #**173** (**permalink**) 03-13-2009, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by legojenn

However your linking environmental disasters to the Queen and her family in entirely inappropriate.

I linked the DEATHS to the Queen, not the environmental disaster.

Environmental disasters happen. Deaths can be prevented when people are protected from environmental disasters which happen.

The responsibility of the head of state of Australia, the Queen, was not to prevent bush-fires but to prevent the deaths.

The deaths could have been prevented by creating effective fire breaks around properties and main roads.

Other measures such as fire-fighting equipment and a sufficient supply of water would supplement the essential fire-breaks.

The state should have INSISTED that such measures were taken. Instead the state INSISTED that fire-break measures were NOT taken - people being MOST PERVERSELY fined for clearing trees around their houses.

Now faced with a lethally stupid state which is risking people's lives and getting people killed, the fault lies with the head of state.

It is an STATE OF EMERGENCY situation and the head of state needs to declare that and send in the military to kick the officials into doing the right thing to save lives.

The Queen didn't act so she failed yet again as head of state as she always does fail so no surprise there.

Now I am repeating myself, so please re-read my posts on my forum because it was deleted from this forum.

Australian bush-fires: mass manslaughter by the Queen

Instead of learning that you needed a republic and a good president to save lives, Australians have been fooled into inviting Princess Anne to Australia to say how sorry the royals were WHEN IT WAS THE MONARCHY'S FAULT THAT 200+ PEOPLE DIED.

You are not learning your lesson and more people are going to die unnecessarily, not just in bush-fires but across the range of preventable disasters.

The disaster is the deaths. Bush-fires happen, big deal, no sweat for a good president.

With a stupid Queen, the least thing that happens - many deaths.

Learn it or condemn more innocents to die.

cenydd · #**174** (**permalink**) 03-13-2009, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

And... I know the difference between Great Britain and England. I used them perfectly appropriately so I have no idea what you are blithering about, unless you are referring to someone else.

Specifically, you referred to an alliance with 'England'. England is part of the UK, and as such is not capable of making independant alliances seperately and in its own right, any more than Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland would be. The alliance that exists is with the UK, not 'England'.

Ziggy Stardust · #**175** (**permalink**) 03-13-2009, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cenydd

Specifically, you referred to an alliance with 'England'. England is part of the UK, and as such is not capable of making independant alliances seperately and in its own right, any more than Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland would be. The alliance that exists is with the UK, not 'England'.

Semantics. Honestly that is almost as bad as people picking out grammar mistakes, completely unnecessary.

I was not even referring to an "official treaty" in this case. I was talking about the similarity in culture, government structure and a number of other things, between Australia and England.

I don't want to break from the commonwealth because we will just become a mini America. I don't want stupid electoral campaign's like they have in America. I don't want to spell colour, "color". I like our ABC channel that plays mostly BBC shows. I prefer our system of government over the obvious alternative, America's.

And here:

Alliance: correspondence in basic characteristics; affinity: the alliance between logic and metaphysics.

Makedde · #**176** (**permalink**) 03-13-2009, 07:38 PM

Peter Dow, I am of the view that you are nothing more than a troll here to offend those of us who were affected by the bushfire tragedy. The Queen had no power to prevent this disaster. Our government did. It is the governments fault, if it is anyones at all. I do not like the Queen but I will not have someone from Scotland of all places (you aren't an Aussie so what would you know) crapping on about how the Queen is a killer.

legojenn · #**177** (**permalink**) 03-13-2009, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde

Peter Dow, I am of the view that you are nothing more than a troll here to offend those of us who were affected by the bushfire tragedy. The Queen had no power to prevent this disaster. Our government did. It is the governments fault, if it is anyones at all. I do not like the Queen but I will not have someone from Scotland of all places (you aren't an Aussie so what would you know) crapping on about how the Queen is a killer.

He's just jealous that England spun off Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica etc, but Scotland wasn't good enough to be a full-fledged independant country. Even Ireland is an independant country. Scotland still needs England to take care of it. Talk about an inferiority complex.

Paris · #**178** (**permalink**) 03-13-2009, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctiloquus

Just like Britain and all other countries that have held on to the past and kept an antiquated and worthless system of governance, Australia should get rid of the Monarchy. What use is an untrained aristocrat as Head of State?

The Monarchy is worthless, and has as much justification for remaining as John Prescott has for staying in office.

I concur doctoliquus!

Skinny. · #**179** (**permalink**) 03-14-2009, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

It works well, so leave it well alone.

It cant "work well" because it's only a ceremonial thing. I would change it because I don't think having an appointed leader represents Australian values.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

I didn't say anyone would be "offended" I said that if we were to break with the commonwealth we would just become more and more Americanised. Our politics, our TV, our language!

I don't see any reason for this happening simply because we leave the commonwealth. What's on TV is determined by consumer demand, and I doubt our way of writting and pronouncing certain words that differs from America, is going to change.

Ziggy Stardust · #**180** (**permalink**) 03-15-2009, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny.

It cant "work well" because it's only a ceremonial thing. I would change it because I don't think having an appointed leader represents Australian values.

I am talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system

The Westminster system, our system of government. I believe it works well for us. I'm Australian, my values don't include being "anti-Westminster", don't see your point. I am not "anti-Queen of England" or "anti-England".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny.

I don't see any reason for this happening simply because we leave the commonwealth. What's on TV is determined by consumer demand, and I doubt our way of writting and pronouncing certain words that differs from America, is going to change.

Er... the ABC. Government funded free to air television that is modeled on the BBC. I am pretty convinced that our pronounciation and spelling will become more "Americanised" if we have a "president" rather than a Prime Minister and Governor General. Plus we won't have the Commonwealth games.

View Poll Results: Should Australia be a Republic?
Yes	38	65.52%
No	20	34.48%
Voters: 58. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode