Prince Charles and the future of the Monarchy in the Commonwealth

[Camikaze]

A nice little statistic to point out would be that 24% of the Australian population wasn't born here. So, as Arwon put it (very well), the traditional ties don't apply anymore, in this regard. A changing populace (read: no more White Australia Policy) means a changing relation to the rest of the world, in this case, a move away from Europe to Asia and the Pacific.

 

[Arwon]

That's a shame. Well, surely the Chinese have some good name for Australia, don't they? "Southern Barbarian Continent" or something along those lines...

Nah, it's phonetic in Chinese too. 澳大利亚 - something like "oh - da - li - ah" I believe.

I think Japan has an alternate name based on the Chinese transilteration though.

Your racist "Yellow Peril" insinuations are not working.

(Psst, Cami, the largest group of "not born heres" are still Brits and Kiwis)

 

[Winner]

Nah, it's phonetic in Chinese too. 澳大利亚 - something like "oh - da - li - ya" I believe.

I think Japan has an alternate name based on the Chinese transilteration though.

Your racist "Yellow Peril" insinuations are not working.

(Psst, Cami, the largest group of "not born heres" are still Brits and Kiwis)

It's hilarious how hard are you trying to put your words into my mouth - what is this, about the third post in row where you've tried to do that? It must be frustrating that I am not taking the bait

 

[Arwon]

Yes Winner, because you're so canny and clever and don't directly state things, that means that nobody can ever read between the lines of your posts.

 

[Winner]

A nice little statistic to point out would be that 24% of the Australian population wasn't born here. So, as Arwon put it (very well), the traditional ties don't apply anymore, in this regard. A changing populace (read: no more White Australia Policy) means a changing relation to the rest of the world, in this case, a move away from Europe to Asia and the Pacific.

In other words, Huntington was right in principle. Australia is de-Westernizing itself. Well, good luck in that

 

[Tee Kay]

澳大利亚 Ao-da-li-ya

Chinese transliteration is a nightmare.

 

[Camikaze]

(Psst, Cami, the largest group of "not born heres" are still Brits and Kiwis)

Shhh. That doesn't help the argument.

Okay then, I'll requalify.

There are many many more non-white immigrants, or non-European/European background immigrants now than there were in past years, and this changing composition of immigrants is changing Australia's relation to the world.

In other words, Huntington was right in principle. Australia is de-Westernizing itself. Well, good luck in that

If by de-Westernizing, you mean not discriminating, than yes, Australia is doing that quite nicely.

 

[Arwon]

In other words, Huntington was right in principle. Australia is de-Westernizing itself. Well, good luck in that

Complete this sentence:

"The White Australia Policy is..."

 

[Winner]

Yes Winner, because you're so canny and clever and don't directly state things, that means that nobody can ever read between the lines of your posts.

Well, your ability to read between the lines is legendary, you usually discover an entirely different meaning in other people's words - usually the one you expected to be there. But hey, continue if you like, I'd love to know what I am really thinking

Complete this sentence:

"The White Australia Policy is..."

... something I don't care about in the slightest? Sorry, Australian politics is pretty low on the list of my interests. Being Western has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.

 

[Masada]

On the future of Australia, its place in the world, its ties with Europe and so on.

We are European, insofar as we have European institutions, a European populace (mostly), but we are manifestly not "European" in any other sense of the word you care to count. Most of us don't look at Europe Great Britain with puppy eyes anymore, that died at Gallipoli, in the collapse of British Asia during the Second World War - symbolized by the destruction of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse followed by the collapse of Singapore and the exposure of the myth of British invulnerability which they had assiduously propagated, in the refusal by senior British military figures to allow the regulars to return home despite a looming threat to their homeland; after a point you have to get inured to the disasters and turn towards the successes which were coming in from a different quarter - America.

Our military policy had for a long time hinged on the belief that Britain could defend us, that was manifestly shown to be false and was after the war compounded by her defeats and forced decolonization in Asia. We even had to help pick up the British tab in Malaya twice with the Emergency and Konfrontasi actions which really didn't help Australia's position abroad. the Konfrontasi bought us lasting enmity from our largest and second closest neighbor which is still acting against our interests even now.

The process of transitioning away from the Motherland was cemented for New Zealand with the entry of Great Britain to the Common Market and its abandonment of Empire First that forced us to liberalize economically and undergo a decade of economic and political strife ending with Muldoon. With Australia, I think it was more of a general process of disillusionment rather than a specific event.

We are not Asian either, in large part, most of our "Asians" after a generation or two are Australians. We have a remarkable ability to assimilate different groups we are simply speaking institutionally good at doing it. Sure the Chinese might claim to be "Chinese" some of the time (or all of the time) but most of the time they are Australian (no matter how much they protest to the contrary).

We are a weird amalgam of all kinds of different cultures, we really always have been, Australia was majority Irish and Scottish in its early days, New Zealand during its early days of European Colonization had just as many Germans and other miscellanea as Englishmen. South Australia was founded by Germans. The Northern Territory had more Chinese than Europeans till something like 1940 when Darwin was flooded with troops. Queensland had a large population of Pacific Islanders till they were deported having been 'rescued' from forced labor here. Western Australia was founded by troglodytes and the list goes on. In any case what is "Europe", does it include Russia, or Turkey, or North Africa, or Great Britain, or the Crimea, or the Basques, or the Sami or anyone else who might possibly not be your typical Romance or Germanic speaking "Europeans".

(Psst, Cami, the largest group of "not born heres" are still Brits and Kiwis)

I'm going to have to take my evil immigrant ass back across the Tasman! RATS!

 

[sysyphus]

Besides, having hundreds of years of tradition is important for something with ceremonial purposes. What would be the reaction to Michel Jean opening the 2010 Olympics compared to Liz?

Having an Olympic event hosted in Canada opened by the Governor General of Canada seems more sensible than the Queen of England.

 

[Tee Kay]

* Delete me. *

 

[PiMan]

I support Australia changing to a republic as soon as possible, but I would also like the change to be largely ceremonial. This just means taking away the powers of the queen, and where they aren't already in the hands of the governor general, give him/her those powers too.
Don't even bother changing the GG's title. We don't need a president.

The current system works, why change it any more than symbolically...

EDIT: The only condition I place is that we still get to compete in the Commonwealth Games. I like getting as many medals as the next 10 countries combined.

 

[Masada]

I support Australia changing to a republic as soon as possible, but I would also like the change to be largely ceremonial. This just means taking away the powers of the queen, and where they aren't already in the hands of the governor general, give him/her those powers too.

Just have the appointment of the GG by the Queen contingent on a vote; you could simply pass an Act that required that and make repealing it contingent on a referendum (I believe that a referendum and robust public debate should be required for the passage of such an important bill however).

The current system works, why change it any more than symbolically...

The complete rewrite of the Constitution is the sole reason why you would never change it more than symbolically. You won't have a hope in hell of passing any significant constitutional amendments in less than a decade.

The only condition I place is that we still get to compete in the Commonwealth Games. I like getting as many medals as the next 10 countries combined.

There's no reason why we can't stay in the Commonwealth and participate in the Commonwealth games. I also support the amalgamation of the New Zealand and Australia Olympic and Commonwealth teams into Team Antipodes - Punching Way Above Our Population Weight! We could have the medals per capita at 1:1 if we tried hard enough!

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I don't think the Queen would want to pick anyone, especially if her choice could be rejected.

 

[Masada]

I don't think the Queen would want to pick anyone, especially if her choice could be rejected.

Australia surmounted that hurdle early last century, we rejected His Majesty's choice and we won. Its now convention that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet recommend to the Queen a choice, who by default approves said choice.

That was Sir Isaacs Isaacs fault as well as this destructive little decision, bloody radical centralist, destroying states rights and Federation.

 

[PiMan]

Just have the appointment of the GG by the Queen contingent on a vote; you could simply pass an Act that required that and make repealing it contingent on a referendum (I believe that a referendum and robust public debate should be required for the passage of such an important bill however).

Why do we need to vote for someone who doesn't do anything? The GG has power, but they don't use it and I expect that to continue.

 

[Masada]

Why do we need to vote for someone who doesn't do anything? The GG has power, but they don't use it and I expect that to continue.

The GG doesn't have power? What was the dismissal all about? Besides, plenty of heads of state don't have power but people still vote for them, East Timor springs to mind at this hour.

EDIT: The ability to block all legislation by withholding signature is also fairly powerful. The operative thing here is, just because you don't use your power, doesn't mean you don't have the power to start with.

 

[sysyphus]

I support Australia changing to a republic as soon as possible, but I would also like the change to be largely ceremonial. This just means taking away the powers of the queen, and where they aren't already in the hands of the governor general, give him/her those powers too.
Don't even bother changing the GG's title. We don't need a president.

The current system works, why change it any more than symbolically...

EDIT: The only condition I place is that we still get to compete in the Commonwealth Games. I like getting as many medals as the next 10 countries combined.

I envision the same for Canada, except that we will abandon the monarchy coinciding with the end of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II and that the Governor General be made an elected position so that s/he will have a true mandate to fulfill their role. And the GG does in fact have a considerable function, most notably deciding if and when to dissolve Parliament.

Of course, abandoning the monarchy does not mean leaving the Commonwealth, which I believe that we should remain a part of. Of course, we should also lobby for a winter version of the Commonwealth Games so that we can be the ones winning all the medals.

 

[warpus]

Sysphus, won't it make more sense to rename the "Governor General" to "President" if that happens?

Would people really go out and vote for a "Governor General"? Do average Canadians understand what the position is for and what it represents?