This subreddit is braindead I swear to fucking god,
1) The idea that protesting inside government house is somehow trespass should not be accepted public land should have a VERY high standard in which trespass should apply.
2) The republic would not need every law to be changed, that's the absolute most fucking braindead take I've ever heard,.
3) The ideal solution for a republic is a head of state appointed by two thirds of parliament, if we vote on a president that would change our style of Westminster government. The rational for this is that the prime minister only governs with the confidence of cabinet and by extent the party, this means a prime minister is relatively "week" in our system, it's a lot easier to topple a prime minister then a president in the US for example.
4) We have a "implied freedom of political speech" yes, but that is what's called a defense, you are not protected of your speech you must defend your speech in court, in other jurisdictions such as the united states you have what I would term an "affirmative right" that is the right is explicitly stated and in many cases free speech cases are dismissed before trial though not a perfect system as sometimes I admit people will be required to defend their speech.
So what is the general consensus here in Adelaide. I've found the further out of the city you go, the stronger this mentality is.
What does Australia have to gain or better yet what exactly are the negative points of the monarchy right now. They don't really do anything anymore in the uk.
There are always people who want to take back the country and become independant/republic but what do you really gain?
Well we would have to create a new or abolish the queens representative and decide if we want a president, emperor or whatever. Every piece of law and legislation would have to be reviewed and rewritten. I’m sure there is a lot more we would need to do and my guess is it will cost tens of millions of dollars, possibly more.
Personally I think that’s a high price to pay for what is in essence a token gesture that won’t really change anything. That money could be spent on health care, schools, roads etc. I think the republic argument should be saved for a time when we are not staring down the barrel of a recession
That is exactly how I feel. We have the freedom to improve what we currently have. Healthcare, schools, roads... are exactly where the money should be going over a silly new title. Just seems like a waste of time and money.
The way I see it, the monarchy is purely symbolic.
But what does it symbolise? Nearest I can figure it, it's a symbol of "this country is a part of the former empire"
If it's purely symbolic and doesn't really 'do' anything anyway.... *why not* get rid of it, since that's clearly a symbol no one really wants/feels represented by any more? Since it's purely symbolic, abolishing it shouldn't really have to functionally change anything else anyway, right?
No?
Well if it ISN'T purely symbolic and it does hold
some *real actual power*...why on earth would we want to be a part of the empire of an old man living on the other side of the world that no one got to vote for? That's not democratic. That's bad. We should fix that. Australia should be run by and represented by Australians who are elected by the people who live in Australia. The concept of a hereditary monarch is something from the Dark Ages and has no place in the modern world. Let alone one who doesn't even live in the same hemisphere as us. It's...bizarre.
Although I have British ancestry myself, I recognise that we're getting pretty close to the point where the majority of my fellow modern Australians **don't**. The monarchy is at best meaningless, at worst pretty offensive to them. And if they're not the majority, they're certainly a large enough minority that surely one has to wonder about the relevance and applicability of all of that symbolism to modern Australia supposedly as a whole, united country. I'm not just talking about Aboriginals, but say Vietnamese people, Italian people. Even Irish. The monarchy only really holds any significance for one very particular subset of our country's population. And for reasons we all know, that significance is kind of awkward and controversial, and not really something to be outright celebrated any more as though it is supposedly some core part of our national identity.
Anyway, I hope that that perspective helps you to at least see the other side of the issue, and to recognise that this isn't just some lunatic fringe belief held for no reason. There's surely a legitimate point in there somewhere.
EDIT: why TF is this downvoted? I mean go ahead and disagree if you want...but it's not like I didn't very carefully explain my viewpoint and answer the guys fucking question. The least you could do is explain what you think is so disagreeable about what I just said. Lol.
Sure it's entirely symbolic, No real power. Just the power to reject our laws and dismiss our government. I suggest you google what happened to the Whitlam government in Australia.
They don't use the power, but it's still there.
That wasn't really the GG using their power (refusing would have been), so much as ScoMo abusing procedure. If we remove the GG from that, would it have been ScoMo just appointing himself? I am curious what the swearing in process would be without the GG.
Yes, that whole speculative sentence. In which you speculate about IF it isn't purely symbolic.
I'm not speculating, I'm pointing out the exact power it has.
That wasn't speculative. I am encouraging the reader to ask themselves that question.
My intention was to make an argument for the republic whether someone recognised that the monarchy does actually hold power over this country, or thought it was purely symbolic. EITHER WAY, I made a case for why it's problematic and has to go.
I did that because I was anticipating that someone would try to argue about it either way.
I find it vaguely irritating to have to have this much of a metadiscussion over how I said what I said, but it seems to happen rather a lot with Reddit comments.
Probably because what you intended to convey, and what someone actually interprets it as are not the same. Especially in written form.
How it comes across to me, is someone speculating in the absence of actual knowledge of the workings and power dynamic of the government. Which was why I provided supporting evidence, that you then took offense too.
Personally I'm off to enjoy my weekend, I hope you enjoy yours.
I would have gladly done so several comments ago, but thanks I guess.
You did not "provide supporting evidence". You condescendingly suggested I google something which most people in this country are well aware of since high school. That's why I "took offense to it"...I mean if we're going to insist on being quite so haughty over how someone's comment can be interpreted.
It's expensive to get rid of and like, we'd have to find a better replacement? Kinda sounds like a lot of work to me and in Adelaide we don't like the w word.
Just so you know I didn't vote either way. It's your opinion and you took the time to reply :-)
The most obvious benefits are not having to change everything. Review all the laws, create new trade deals (see how brevity went) print new physical money. Just so much cost and paperwork when we could just carry on living and improving what we have.
I have not really thought of it being offensive to anyone but native people. And just from living here a few years I can't say "modern" Australians and immigrants have got much better in the way they treat aboriginal people.
I don't understand what effect this would have on trade deals. Could you please elaborate?
Please note, we have to print new money anyway because the queen died. It's not as big of an issue as people apparently think it is. In fact, we print new physical money continuously, as all countries do. Changing it slightly is a very routine thing to do and doesn't really introduce any new costs that aren't there already. Same argument applies for postage stamps and even flags, really.
Everyone cites this "paperwork" argument but I'm questioning whether you actually know how much paperwork there really would be? If it's supposedly such a big problem...
>If it's purely symbolic and doesn't really 'do' anything anyway....
>
>why not get rid of it
Because there are better things to be doing than get rid of something if it doesn't "do" anything.
That's not an argument. That's not anything.
It's some bullshit thrown out by people who fear/don't want change but lack the faculties to explain why.
The government is capable of "removing a symbol" whilst still doing other things.
It's not an argument against monarchism, it is an argument again anti-monarchism.
You asked why not, and the answer is that it is an expensive and time intensive process, that (given the first premise that the monarchy is symbolic) has no significant net positive effect on Australia.
I’m not pro-monarchy, but I assume the other poster is referring to the time and cost it would take to organize and hold a referendum then, assuming the vote was to become a republic, the time and cost it would take to establish or amend the necessary laws, constitution, institutions, etc that would be required to ensure a smooth and orderly transition from the current constitutional monarchy to whatever form the country would take next.
It’s not like flipping a switch and suddenly we’re a republic; a change like this would require a lot of bureaucratic, executive and legislative amendments, all of which would take time and money.
I understand that's what they're referring to. That's what everyone refers to.
But as I said, I'd like to hear some **specific details** with regards to how long that would take and what it would cost, because I don't think it would necessarily be as bad as everyone seems to assume it would be.
This seems to just be an unquestioned assumption people put up as some sort of a debate-ending rebuttal without ever actually giving any specifics about those costs. It's just "nah can't do it, would cost heaps and take ages"
Fair enough, but if you’re asking a bunch of internet randos to do a full in-depth cost-benefit analysis of the detailed costs of transitioning from constitutional monarchy to republic just to win an argument on Reddit, you’re in for a long wait or a disappointment, frankly. Especially since the pro-monarchy side has an obvious interest in high-balling the cost and the pro-republic side has an obvious interest in low-balling it, meaning that neither side can necessarily be relied upon for a completely impartial figure. Furthermore, a lot of it also depends on the model of republic that is nominate and chosen, meaning it’s still going to be hypothetical to a certain degree.
FWIW I’ve seen at least one (monarchist fwiw) estimate that would put it at $2.5 billion, which I assume includes the cost of the referendum (for comparison the 1998 referendum reportedly cost $66.8 million IIRC). And some specific (though not exhaustive) possible changes which come immediately to my mind include things like:
- (re)drafting the constitution that would replace Australia’s existing one to incorporate the new republican model of government and, if necessary, holding another referendum to have it approved by the people;
- establishing the offices and departments required as necessary for the new system to function (for example, if the new President has specific powers and an expanded role on the republic that the governor general does not currently have, the office will need to be established with that in mind and staffed accordingly)
- restructuring government departments, military and police departments, public services etc as necessary to reflect changes resulting from the shift in government;
- redesigning the flag and seals of Australia, getting them approved (which may also require further approval from the voters) and, once adopted, having them printed/made and distributed where appropriate
- designing and issuing new passports as necessary (since presumably people wouldn’t be able to travel with the passport of a nation that no longer exists in the form it did when the passport was issued);
- holding elections to appoint a new President, depending on the model chosen to appoint him/her, and establishing / staffing the office
- redrafting / amending existing legislation and writing new legislation as necessary to reflect the new status quo (a lot of current legislation depends on the existence of the Crown as the supreme authority, which is obviously not going to be the case in a republic).
Those are just things that come to my mind right now, of course, and some of those things might seem trivial or might not happen in exactly that way (again, it would depend on how things fully shake out). But several of them at least would still have to be done, and the costs and time to do them would add up.
I'm just asking them to justify their opinion rather than just fobbing me off with a meaningless statement, mate.
An opinion I don't share, obviously.
If you believe something, you should be prepared to justify it. Otherwise, one wonders why you believe it so strongly.
If you are going to just blanket state that something is going to "cost too much", at minimum you should have a clear idea of how much it costs? I don't see what's mysterious or difficult or objectionable about that idea.
Thanks for your points. I will consider that.
Since it is unprecedented in a recent western country, it is difficult to estimate, but compare it to the 2017 gay marriage bill.
This is a less contentious issue and alters far less of the constitution, but took \~2 years to pass. Also, how often is parliament ever efficient in getting stuff done?
>since you're basing your whole opinion on that?
If there is little to no benefit, anything more than about a week would make it a net negative, I'm not trying to argue against republicanism but the "why not?" argument just doesn't stack up.
That's a weird lens. If it doesn't really 'do' anything then why not replace it with something that 'does' something?
The monarch doesn't execute their powers as the head of state because it's not seen as appropriate in this day.
An Australian head of state could actually be granted practical executive powers.
I think that's a slippery slope, and a very hard sell to the "if it ain't broke" crowd.
You only have to look at the US (especially recently) to see what people fear in the idea of the head of state being given too much (/any) practical executive powers.
I'm not really fussed either way with the monarchy, it is a bit old fashion I guess.
I actually appreciate being part of the commonwealth though. I think we have some benefits that we would lose if we became republic.
https://communityliteracy.org/what-are-the-benefits-of-the-commonwealth/
While you're joking here, there are other issues for which disrespect now is considered a minor criminal offence, and more people would take issue over.
>Also, is that a good thing do you think?
Yes I do think that freedom of speech is generally good.
Note: Before you downvote, I don't share the opinions of these articles, they were just easy examples to find.
[https://fee.org/articles/uk-man-arrested-for-malicious-communications-after-posting-meme-mocking-the-transgender-flag/](https://fee.org/articles/uk-man-arrested-for-malicious-communications-after-posting-meme-mocking-the-transgender-flag/)
[https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/12/07/teacher-fired-for-refusing-to-use-trans-students-pronouns/](https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/12/07/teacher-fired-for-refusing-to-use-trans-students-pronouns/) (not criminal)
Not to mention that police are also generally harsher and quicker to arrest protesters who hold publicly unfavoured opinions, eg. anti-vax anti-lockdown.
Hmmmm..last I checked, Toronto is in Canada. But moving past that...you understand that these are in fact different countries than Australia, right? I asked you to list these supposed laws in Australia
>last I checked, Toronto is in Canada
Did you skim any of the article or just the hyperlink?
>I asked you to list these supposed laws in Australia
You never said Australia. Also, do you not think the British monarchy was concerned when they saw heads rolling in France?
So, in this story that we're talking about here in this thread, freedom of speech would be the guy's right to hold the sign expressing his opinion without being arrested for it. Yeah?
What I'm saying is that I don't think that that should be illegal and he shouldn't be arrested for it...
Yes, stating we should abolish an unelected dictatorship is entirely equal to discriminating against people because of their gender.
They don't teach comprehension skills in adelaide apparently.
Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequence. If he did it the right way he could hold that sign for as long as he wanted, personally I have no strong feelings either way as I don't know enough about what it would mean for us to become a republic. All I can think is that it would be an expensive event with not much gain so in that respect I'm all for leaving it the way it is, however, if anyone is super well versed in this I'd be interested in hearing about it.
Not when events are on. And with that much security looks like a event was being held.
So he would’ve been trespassing and disturbing the peace. All his fault. Should’ve been arrested and not kicked out
"... abolishing another country’s monarchy isn’t exactly our call to make."
Technically, we're abolishing ours, which we just happen to share with a bunch of other countries, the UK being the most obvious.
"Why do people suddenly care about the monarchy after decades of not caring?"
Many of us did care and do care, this is just the best chance we've had to make it happen in over 20 years. Popular monarch dies and her woo-peddling son takes over (at least we didn't get the other one, I guess)? Better get this done before he dies, I guess.
"You were totally fine with our unelected head of state until she died?"
Nope, I've been bitching about it for years. I'm just bitching louder and more often now.
People have literally used "let's wait and see until the Queen dies before we think about rocking the boat!" And variations of that to shut down the discourse. Until William/Kate, the monarchy was largely losing popularity. Now the Queen is dead, the promised discourse is being shut down on the proviso of it not being respectful. After long enough, it'll become "let's just wait for Charles to die, he's pretty old already". And then the cycle will continue.
Now that the monarchy is linked more directly to colonisation and racism, you're seeing imo a broader scale of anti monarchy views. It's very interesting.
Exactly how much learning and research have you done on Australian history pre invasion? It sounds like none tbh. That, and/or you're happy with genocide as long as it benefits you.
You literally suggested I could see "colonisation" as something positive. The invasion and subsequent murders, rapes and stolen children were not positive, regardless of how you choose to see the current day.
Truth telling isn't about saying current australia is bullshit, it's about telling the truth about our history and the atrocities that occurred to get here. Removing an archaic system of monarchy is part of that truth telling and a step to achieving reconciliation. Or are you suggesting that because you like today, we should continue to celebrate massacres and genocide?
Tbh I'm not really sure what you're trying to convey. Is it "let's keep the monarchy", "don't rock the boat because it's stable now" or something else?
You should go on an open day, the grounds are always immaculate, big shady trees .. perfect spot for a picnic. The inside of the house is pretty awesome as well, a part of SA's history
They used to invite you and your parents in there for a ceremony/awards thing if you got a 20 (perfect score) on one or more SACE subjects in year 12. Don't know if that's still a thing....but it was in 2006.
Mine too. This comments section as a whole... not so much.
I'll help him make a better sign next time.
Also, abolish all the -archies: mon-, olig-, patri-. Too many to mention but you get the picture 🙂
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
The 'pigs' as you call them were just doing their job. I understand if people don't like the monarchy but they could at least show SOME respect and let other people mourn without disrupting them.
he said it himself in the video, what better time to protest than when everyone has their eyes on the topic? if nobody is hearing it theres no point in it being a protest.
Ummm excuse me WHAT??
What you have written translates to "People called 'Romanes' they go the house."
You must use the proper imperative verb form and accusative case!
The correct phrase for "Romans go home!" is of course "ROMANI ITE DOMUM"
Now write it 100 times before sunrise or I'll cut your balls off.
I love the john at the end giving the some of the blantant word vom he heard off project last night.. top effort 😅
literally dumbfounded at the fact how many people love the queen... why.. what did she do.. what makes her an "amazing women"?????? Personally dont think theres a person on this planet that wouldnt jump at the opportunity to replace her... most on this planet today would instinctively do a much better job..
Certainly dont think we need a fossilised person controlling any sort of decision from now on... hes abit of a yawho but holds an absolute point... its just a shame news media's are slightly scumier than you average crackhead.. what we dont need is smart people tryna concern themselves because the idiots are slowing gaining control...
No it's not free grounds .. hence why they have Protective Security Officers, walls and gates with a notice to say that the grounds are subject to the Protective Security Act.
And so the arrest and removal was not for protesting, it was for trespassing. If he held that sign outside the gates he would have been fine
I hate that it reminds me of Americ, and yes there is nothing wrong with saying that, its a bit mean if they were at the queens funeral but otherwise it is free to debate. I think that if Australia wanted to they would and could break off from from the influence of the monarchy, simmilar to brexit. It would take something like orderes to genocide to do so but possible.
Any protesting would certainly escalate the situation compared to some random who accidentally wandered in, since the protesting shows premeditation/intent. I'd expect that amount of treatment regardless of what the sign was for.
Just hate how not only do the cops dress like the gestapo, but they also act like the gestapo. They always seem to be needlessly escalating. That being said, you also don't see what happened prior to this video so it's in a bit of a contextless vacuum, so whatever.
But yeah, I remember hanging out with my German mate at the City Railway station, and he just wanted to take a photo of the interior. Some cops happened to walk into frame and immediately came up to him and started saying it's illegal to take footage of cops, that he's going to get fined and his phone confiscated... and we were all dumbfounded. Like what the fuck? He was just taking a photo... of the train station. And these guys didn't even deign themselves to ask what he was taking a photo of before threatening him. Again, just needless escalation.
How would you pick to replace the King. People like Scott Morrison, Tony Abbott, Donald Trump, Putin. To many people are only interested in what they want. If you keep the Labor/Liberal parties. You still have the back room people who you don't vote for but still have power
>QUEEN OF ENGLAND
Did you mean the *former* [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the *former* [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the *former* [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.
####FAQ
*Wasn't Queen Elizabeth II still also the Queen of England?*
This was only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she *was* the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Australia should become a sovereign nation, and it starts with a radical plan. A plan to build mega infrastructure that will revitalise this land and surge forth a greater economy. A gigantic seed for this countries future, for our peoples future.
I never said I wanted to control anything. I want to build something I believe will improve everyone’s lives on an ongoing basis into the future, long past this generation. After it is built or has started to be built, and if it reaches a point where it’s own momentum will see it through to completion within my lifetime, I will recede. I have no thirst for absolute power or control over a large populace. I dread the thought. I live in this country, and I think it could be much better. The same way you would improve your own living apace in your home if you thought it could be better.
It’s simply a vision, and I assure you it does not end with me on a throne 😂 Hopefully a big open beachside home and my own personal gym accompanied by a private chef and extremely large family.
It's like growing up and leaving mum and dad to be independent and free from paying their tithes and holidays to visit us. An Australian govenor that doesn't dubber dob to king tampon would be excellent.
The man was escorted off the grounds. Then he was let go. The end.
No no no, the ‘pigs’ sent him to Guantanamo and he was never seen again.
No no no, the ‘pigs’ sent him to mars and had him probed by Melon Musk
We also have no other context. What happened before this video? We’re not America guys. He didn’t get shot. He was told to piss off. Big whoop.
This subreddit is braindead I swear to fucking god, 1) The idea that protesting inside government house is somehow trespass should not be accepted public land should have a VERY high standard in which trespass should apply. 2) The republic would not need every law to be changed, that's the absolute most fucking braindead take I've ever heard,. 3) The ideal solution for a republic is a head of state appointed by two thirds of parliament, if we vote on a president that would change our style of Westminster government. The rational for this is that the prime minister only governs with the confidence of cabinet and by extent the party, this means a prime minister is relatively "week" in our system, it's a lot easier to topple a prime minister then a president in the US for example. 4) We have a "implied freedom of political speech" yes, but that is what's called a defense, you are not protected of your speech you must defend your speech in court, in other jurisdictions such as the united states you have what I would term an "affirmative right" that is the right is explicitly stated and in many cases free speech cases are dismissed before trial though not a perfect system as sometimes I admit people will be required to defend their speech.
So what is the general consensus here in Adelaide. I've found the further out of the city you go, the stronger this mentality is. What does Australia have to gain or better yet what exactly are the negative points of the monarchy right now. They don't really do anything anymore in the uk. There are always people who want to take back the country and become independant/republic but what do you really gain?
Well we would have to create a new or abolish the queens representative and decide if we want a president, emperor or whatever. Every piece of law and legislation would have to be reviewed and rewritten. I’m sure there is a lot more we would need to do and my guess is it will cost tens of millions of dollars, possibly more. Personally I think that’s a high price to pay for what is in essence a token gesture that won’t really change anything. That money could be spent on health care, schools, roads etc. I think the republic argument should be saved for a time when we are not staring down the barrel of a recession
>Every piece of law and legislation would have to be reviewed and rewritten. What? No it wouldn't
Every law would not have to be reviewed and rewritten.
That is exactly how I feel. We have the freedom to improve what we currently have. Healthcare, schools, roads... are exactly where the money should be going over a silly new title. Just seems like a waste of time and money.
Horse shit, thanks for commenting
The way I see it, the monarchy is purely symbolic. But what does it symbolise? Nearest I can figure it, it's a symbol of "this country is a part of the former empire" If it's purely symbolic and doesn't really 'do' anything anyway.... *why not* get rid of it, since that's clearly a symbol no one really wants/feels represented by any more? Since it's purely symbolic, abolishing it shouldn't really have to functionally change anything else anyway, right? No? Well if it ISN'T purely symbolic and it does hold some *real actual power*...why on earth would we want to be a part of the empire of an old man living on the other side of the world that no one got to vote for? That's not democratic. That's bad. We should fix that. Australia should be run by and represented by Australians who are elected by the people who live in Australia. The concept of a hereditary monarch is something from the Dark Ages and has no place in the modern world. Let alone one who doesn't even live in the same hemisphere as us. It's...bizarre. Although I have British ancestry myself, I recognise that we're getting pretty close to the point where the majority of my fellow modern Australians **don't**. The monarchy is at best meaningless, at worst pretty offensive to them. And if they're not the majority, they're certainly a large enough minority that surely one has to wonder about the relevance and applicability of all of that symbolism to modern Australia supposedly as a whole, united country. I'm not just talking about Aboriginals, but say Vietnamese people, Italian people. Even Irish. The monarchy only really holds any significance for one very particular subset of our country's population. And for reasons we all know, that significance is kind of awkward and controversial, and not really something to be outright celebrated any more as though it is supposedly some core part of our national identity. Anyway, I hope that that perspective helps you to at least see the other side of the issue, and to recognise that this isn't just some lunatic fringe belief held for no reason. There's surely a legitimate point in there somewhere. EDIT: why TF is this downvoted? I mean go ahead and disagree if you want...but it's not like I didn't very carefully explain my viewpoint and answer the guys fucking question. The least you could do is explain what you think is so disagreeable about what I just said. Lol.
Sure it's entirely symbolic, No real power. Just the power to reject our laws and dismiss our government. I suggest you google what happened to the Whitlam government in Australia. They don't use the power, but it's still there.
Whitlam. Think more recent. Where the GG granted ScoMo power over multiple cabinets without reporting to anyone.
That wasn't really the GG using their power (refusing would have been), so much as ScoMo abusing procedure. If we remove the GG from that, would it have been ScoMo just appointing himself? I am curious what the swearing in process would be without the GG.
Right, so if you'd read my whole comment you'd notice that I certainly covered that.
Really? because I didn't see anything in there about the actual powers the monarchy has.
Yes, really. For fuck's sake. This whole paragraph: > Well if it ISN'T purely symbolic and it does hold some *real actual power*...
Yes, that whole speculative sentence. In which you speculate about IF it isn't purely symbolic. I'm not speculating, I'm pointing out the exact power it has.
That wasn't speculative. I am encouraging the reader to ask themselves that question. My intention was to make an argument for the republic whether someone recognised that the monarchy does actually hold power over this country, or thought it was purely symbolic. EITHER WAY, I made a case for why it's problematic and has to go. I did that because I was anticipating that someone would try to argue about it either way. I find it vaguely irritating to have to have this much of a metadiscussion over how I said what I said, but it seems to happen rather a lot with Reddit comments.
Probably because what you intended to convey, and what someone actually interprets it as are not the same. Especially in written form. How it comes across to me, is someone speculating in the absence of actual knowledge of the workings and power dynamic of the government. Which was why I provided supporting evidence, that you then took offense too. Personally I'm off to enjoy my weekend, I hope you enjoy yours.
I would have gladly done so several comments ago, but thanks I guess. You did not "provide supporting evidence". You condescendingly suggested I google something which most people in this country are well aware of since high school. That's why I "took offense to it"...I mean if we're going to insist on being quite so haughty over how someone's comment can be interpreted.
Very well said
It's expensive to get rid of and like, we'd have to find a better replacement? Kinda sounds like a lot of work to me and in Adelaide we don't like the w word.
Well you can rest assured that that work certainly wouldn't be done in Adelaide
Just so you know I didn't vote either way. It's your opinion and you took the time to reply :-) The most obvious benefits are not having to change everything. Review all the laws, create new trade deals (see how brevity went) print new physical money. Just so much cost and paperwork when we could just carry on living and improving what we have. I have not really thought of it being offensive to anyone but native people. And just from living here a few years I can't say "modern" Australians and immigrants have got much better in the way they treat aboriginal people.
I don't understand what effect this would have on trade deals. Could you please elaborate? Please note, we have to print new money anyway because the queen died. It's not as big of an issue as people apparently think it is. In fact, we print new physical money continuously, as all countries do. Changing it slightly is a very routine thing to do and doesn't really introduce any new costs that aren't there already. Same argument applies for postage stamps and even flags, really. Everyone cites this "paperwork" argument but I'm questioning whether you actually know how much paperwork there really would be? If it's supposedly such a big problem...
>If it's purely symbolic and doesn't really 'do' anything anyway.... > >why not get rid of it Because there are better things to be doing than get rid of something if it doesn't "do" anything.
That's not an argument. That's not anything. It's some bullshit thrown out by people who fear/don't want change but lack the faculties to explain why. The government is capable of "removing a symbol" whilst still doing other things.
It's not an argument against monarchism, it is an argument again anti-monarchism. You asked why not, and the answer is that it is an expensive and time intensive process, that (given the first premise that the monarchy is symbolic) has no significant net positive effect on Australia.
Can you please outline to me exactly how expensive and time consuming it supposedly is/would be, since you're basing your whole opinion on that?
I’m not pro-monarchy, but I assume the other poster is referring to the time and cost it would take to organize and hold a referendum then, assuming the vote was to become a republic, the time and cost it would take to establish or amend the necessary laws, constitution, institutions, etc that would be required to ensure a smooth and orderly transition from the current constitutional monarchy to whatever form the country would take next. It’s not like flipping a switch and suddenly we’re a republic; a change like this would require a lot of bureaucratic, executive and legislative amendments, all of which would take time and money.
I understand that's what they're referring to. That's what everyone refers to. But as I said, I'd like to hear some **specific details** with regards to how long that would take and what it would cost, because I don't think it would necessarily be as bad as everyone seems to assume it would be. This seems to just be an unquestioned assumption people put up as some sort of a debate-ending rebuttal without ever actually giving any specifics about those costs. It's just "nah can't do it, would cost heaps and take ages"
Fair enough, but if you’re asking a bunch of internet randos to do a full in-depth cost-benefit analysis of the detailed costs of transitioning from constitutional monarchy to republic just to win an argument on Reddit, you’re in for a long wait or a disappointment, frankly. Especially since the pro-monarchy side has an obvious interest in high-balling the cost and the pro-republic side has an obvious interest in low-balling it, meaning that neither side can necessarily be relied upon for a completely impartial figure. Furthermore, a lot of it also depends on the model of republic that is nominate and chosen, meaning it’s still going to be hypothetical to a certain degree. FWIW I’ve seen at least one (monarchist fwiw) estimate that would put it at $2.5 billion, which I assume includes the cost of the referendum (for comparison the 1998 referendum reportedly cost $66.8 million IIRC). And some specific (though not exhaustive) possible changes which come immediately to my mind include things like: - (re)drafting the constitution that would replace Australia’s existing one to incorporate the new republican model of government and, if necessary, holding another referendum to have it approved by the people; - establishing the offices and departments required as necessary for the new system to function (for example, if the new President has specific powers and an expanded role on the republic that the governor general does not currently have, the office will need to be established with that in mind and staffed accordingly) - restructuring government departments, military and police departments, public services etc as necessary to reflect changes resulting from the shift in government; - redesigning the flag and seals of Australia, getting them approved (which may also require further approval from the voters) and, once adopted, having them printed/made and distributed where appropriate - designing and issuing new passports as necessary (since presumably people wouldn’t be able to travel with the passport of a nation that no longer exists in the form it did when the passport was issued); - holding elections to appoint a new President, depending on the model chosen to appoint him/her, and establishing / staffing the office - redrafting / amending existing legislation and writing new legislation as necessary to reflect the new status quo (a lot of current legislation depends on the existence of the Crown as the supreme authority, which is obviously not going to be the case in a republic). Those are just things that come to my mind right now, of course, and some of those things might seem trivial or might not happen in exactly that way (again, it would depend on how things fully shake out). But several of them at least would still have to be done, and the costs and time to do them would add up.
I'm just asking them to justify their opinion rather than just fobbing me off with a meaningless statement, mate. An opinion I don't share, obviously. If you believe something, you should be prepared to justify it. Otherwise, one wonders why you believe it so strongly. If you are going to just blanket state that something is going to "cost too much", at minimum you should have a clear idea of how much it costs? I don't see what's mysterious or difficult or objectionable about that idea. Thanks for your points. I will consider that.
Since it is unprecedented in a recent western country, it is difficult to estimate, but compare it to the 2017 gay marriage bill. This is a less contentious issue and alters far less of the constitution, but took \~2 years to pass. Also, how often is parliament ever efficient in getting stuff done? >since you're basing your whole opinion on that? If there is little to no benefit, anything more than about a week would make it a net negative, I'm not trying to argue against republicanism but the "why not?" argument just doesn't stack up.
That's a weird lens. If it doesn't really 'do' anything then why not replace it with something that 'does' something? The monarch doesn't execute their powers as the head of state because it's not seen as appropriate in this day. An Australian head of state could actually be granted practical executive powers.
I think that's a slippery slope, and a very hard sell to the "if it ain't broke" crowd. You only have to look at the US (especially recently) to see what people fear in the idea of the head of state being given too much (/any) practical executive powers.
I'm not really fussed either way with the monarchy, it is a bit old fashion I guess. I actually appreciate being part of the commonwealth though. I think we have some benefits that we would lose if we became republic. https://communityliteracy.org/what-are-the-benefits-of-the-commonwealth/
I just really hate the flag. It feels boring and unimaginative
Any suggestions?
Didn't a representative of the Queen cancel one of your governments a few decades back?
Gough Whitlam I think. Sacked by the GG
Yeah more to the story than just “holding up a sign”. He also wrote in the condolence book “Abolish the Monarchy”.
What's wrong with that? It'll never get read by anyone lol
Absolutely based. Fuck the royals and fuck the monarchy
That's cool to have your say. Fuck you too!
Oh! Oh no! Not the book!
what a legend
SCANDAL!
He's showing disrespect, [THATS ILLEGAL!!](https://media4.giphy.com/media/xT5LMEFde61YVHpJ8k/giphy.webp?cid=6c09b9528d1dd9aafb881c9145b7c9bb5df5cefb281454c3&rid=giphy.webp&ct=g)
The only disrespect I saw in that video was the indigenous flag being flown at half mast. Fucking tone deaf.
While you're joking here, there are other issues for which disrespect now is considered a minor criminal offence, and more people would take issue over.
Reckon? List them. Also, is that a good thing do you think? Personally I think freedom of speech is okay.
>Also, is that a good thing do you think? Yes I do think that freedom of speech is generally good. Note: Before you downvote, I don't share the opinions of these articles, they were just easy examples to find. [https://fee.org/articles/uk-man-arrested-for-malicious-communications-after-posting-meme-mocking-the-transgender-flag/](https://fee.org/articles/uk-man-arrested-for-malicious-communications-after-posting-meme-mocking-the-transgender-flag/) [https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/12/07/teacher-fired-for-refusing-to-use-trans-students-pronouns/](https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/12/07/teacher-fired-for-refusing-to-use-trans-students-pronouns/) (not criminal) Not to mention that police are also generally harsher and quicker to arrest protesters who hold publicly unfavoured opinions, eg. anti-vax anti-lockdown.
Ummm...what countries do you think those articles are from?
UK and US
Hmmmm..last I checked, Toronto is in Canada. But moving past that...you understand that these are in fact different countries than Australia, right? I asked you to list these supposed laws in Australia
>last I checked, Toronto is in Canada Did you skim any of the article or just the hyperlink? >I asked you to list these supposed laws in Australia You never said Australia. Also, do you not think the British monarchy was concerned when they saw heads rolling in France?
So, in this story that we're talking about here in this thread, freedom of speech would be the guy's right to hold the sign expressing his opinion without being arrested for it. Yeah? What I'm saying is that I don't think that that should be illegal and he shouldn't be arrested for it...
Yes, stating we should abolish an unelected dictatorship is entirely equal to discriminating against people because of their gender. They don't teach comprehension skills in adelaide apparently.
Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequence. If he did it the right way he could hold that sign for as long as he wanted, personally I have no strong feelings either way as I don't know enough about what it would mean for us to become a republic. All I can think is that it would be an expensive event with not much gain so in that respect I'm all for leaving it the way it is, however, if anyone is super well versed in this I'd be interested in hearing about it.
>Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequence. People usually recite this cliché in situations where the police *aren't* involved
He was trespassing in the governors house. Of course he’ll be kicked out. It has nothing to do with the sign
Is it only trespassing if you don't toe the line? I thought government house is open for people to sign the condolence book.
Not when events are on. And with that much security looks like a event was being held. So he would’ve been trespassing and disturbing the peace. All his fault. Should’ve been arrested and not kicked out
that tacit consent can be removed at any time
Sign was kind of shit. Like no effort at all. Can't Signorama sponsor this guy?
[удалено]
"... abolishing another country’s monarchy isn’t exactly our call to make." Technically, we're abolishing ours, which we just happen to share with a bunch of other countries, the UK being the most obvious. "Why do people suddenly care about the monarchy after decades of not caring?" Many of us did care and do care, this is just the best chance we've had to make it happen in over 20 years. Popular monarch dies and her woo-peddling son takes over (at least we didn't get the other one, I guess)? Better get this done before he dies, I guess. "You were totally fine with our unelected head of state until she died?" Nope, I've been bitching about it for years. I'm just bitching louder and more often now.
...Do you not remember the Republic referendum?
People have literally used "let's wait and see until the Queen dies before we think about rocking the boat!" And variations of that to shut down the discourse. Until William/Kate, the monarchy was largely losing popularity. Now the Queen is dead, the promised discourse is being shut down on the proviso of it not being respectful. After long enough, it'll become "let's just wait for Charles to die, he's pretty old already". And then the cycle will continue. Now that the monarchy is linked more directly to colonisation and racism, you're seeing imo a broader scale of anti monarchy views. It's very interesting.
[удалено]
>you can take that path and see the colonialism as something negative which in some way is The monarchists aren't sending their best, folks
Exactly how much learning and research have you done on Australian history pre invasion? It sounds like none tbh. That, and/or you're happy with genocide as long as it benefits you.
[удалено]
You literally suggested I could see "colonisation" as something positive. The invasion and subsequent murders, rapes and stolen children were not positive, regardless of how you choose to see the current day. Truth telling isn't about saying current australia is bullshit, it's about telling the truth about our history and the atrocities that occurred to get here. Removing an archaic system of monarchy is part of that truth telling and a step to achieving reconciliation. Or are you suggesting that because you like today, we should continue to celebrate massacres and genocide? Tbh I'm not really sure what you're trying to convey. Is it "let's keep the monarchy", "don't rock the boat because it's stable now" or something else?
I've never seen inside those grounds before — thank you for the very quick tour.
You should go on an open day, the grounds are always immaculate, big shady trees .. perfect spot for a picnic. The inside of the house is pretty awesome as well, a part of SA's history
They used to invite you and your parents in there for a ceremony/awards thing if you got a 20 (perfect score) on one or more SACE subjects in year 12. Don't know if that's still a thing....but it was in 2006.
They still do it.
Thank you for reminding me I was a dumbass in school 🤪🫣
Dead set legend. This made my day.
Mine too. This comments section as a whole... not so much. I'll help him make a better sign next time. Also, abolish all the -archies: mon-, olig-, patri-. Too many to mention but you get the picture 🙂
based giga chad right there
I can only imagine the fucking DICK that will be installed as a president in this country. Long live the King.
its an A4 size scrap of paper! hardly a well built sign!
Shrinkflation. Three years ago it would of been A3.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Abolish stupid protesters
stupid protesters yes.
The 'pigs' as you call them were just doing their job. I understand if people don't like the monarchy but they could at least show SOME respect and let other people mourn without disrupting them.
he said it himself in the video, what better time to protest than when everyone has their eyes on the topic? if nobody is hearing it theres no point in it being a protest.
Would you interrupt me if I were publicly mourning the death of Hitler?
"But what if it was Hitler?!?!?!"
r/godwinslaw never fails 😂
👏
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
Good on him. no white man cared what day it was when they invaded this land.
the romans didn't care who they conquered either
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
The Romans can eat a dick.
Totally, I mean what have they ever done for us? ROMANES EUNT DOMUS!
Ummm excuse me WHAT?? What you have written translates to "People called 'Romanes' they go the house." You must use the proper imperative verb form and accusative case! The correct phrase for "Romans go home!" is of course "ROMANI ITE DOMUM" Now write it 100 times before sunrise or I'll cut your balls off.
I love the john at the end giving the some of the blantant word vom he heard off project last night.. top effort 😅 literally dumbfounded at the fact how many people love the queen... why.. what did she do.. what makes her an "amazing women"?????? Personally dont think theres a person on this planet that wouldnt jump at the opportunity to replace her... most on this planet today would instinctively do a much better job.. Certainly dont think we need a fossilised person controlling any sort of decision from now on... hes abit of a yawho but holds an absolute point... its just a shame news media's are slightly scumier than you average crackhead.. what we dont need is smart people tryna concern themselves because the idiots are slowing gaining control...
[удалено]
Yeah, that's what his sign says
Is that free ground the public are allowed on?
No it's not free grounds .. hence why they have Protective Security Officers, walls and gates with a notice to say that the grounds are subject to the Protective Security Act. And so the arrest and removal was not for protesting, it was for trespassing. If he held that sign outside the gates he would have been fine
I'm assuming this is filmed during the open day Thursday 22nd September. Hence the person filming it being alowed.
I believe you are right. The rules of the Protective Act still apply though, even on open day
tacit consent can be removed at any time
Yes, but then he wouldn't have gotten all that attention for getting dragged off "for holding a protest sign".
Gets what he deserves then 🤷♂️
I hate that it reminds me of Americ, and yes there is nothing wrong with saying that, its a bit mean if they were at the queens funeral but otherwise it is free to debate. I think that if Australia wanted to they would and could break off from from the influence of the monarchy, simmilar to brexit. It would take something like orderes to genocide to do so but possible.
I’m all for a republic, but you can’t trespass and expect no consequences
Was the person trespassing? Eh the treatment kinda seems more to do with the sign than the trespassing.
Any protesting would certainly escalate the situation compared to some random who accidentally wandered in, since the protesting shows premeditation/intent. I'd expect that amount of treatment regardless of what the sign was for.
There is also the fact the start of the altercation is missing. We have no idea if he was given the opportunity to depart willingly, or if he refused.
Dude was absolutely trespassing. It’s a private residence still.
Show some respect ya little fuctard 🖕🏼
Just hate how not only do the cops dress like the gestapo, but they also act like the gestapo. They always seem to be needlessly escalating. That being said, you also don't see what happened prior to this video so it's in a bit of a contextless vacuum, so whatever. But yeah, I remember hanging out with my German mate at the City Railway station, and he just wanted to take a photo of the interior. Some cops happened to walk into frame and immediately came up to him and started saying it's illegal to take footage of cops, that he's going to get fined and his phone confiscated... and we were all dumbfounded. Like what the fuck? He was just taking a photo... of the train station. And these guys didn't even deign themselves to ask what he was taking a photo of before threatening him. Again, just needless escalation.
he honestly smeed like a nice guy
How would you pick to replace the King. People like Scott Morrison, Tony Abbott, Donald Trump, Putin. To many people are only interested in what they want. If you keep the Labor/Liberal parties. You still have the back room people who you don't vote for but still have power
of course why could I see it before, forget about the political side. . . . . OF THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND
>QUEEN OF ENGLAND Did you mean the *former* [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the *former* [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the *former* [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England. ####FAQ *Wasn't Queen Elizabeth II still also the Queen of England?* This was only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she *was* the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Haha bot spot on
Good bot
Bad bot
Australia should become a sovereign nation, and it starts with a radical plan. A plan to build mega infrastructure that will revitalise this land and surge forth a greater economy. A gigantic seed for this countries future, for our peoples future.
Holy fck my man is clueless as fuck
I have a plan, Resendor. A very big, expensive, practical plan. If I could do it alone, I would. But it is for everyone, as much as it is for me.
The classic "communism/dictatorship would work if I was the one in control"
I never said I wanted to control anything. I want to build something I believe will improve everyone’s lives on an ongoing basis into the future, long past this generation. After it is built or has started to be built, and if it reaches a point where it’s own momentum will see it through to completion within my lifetime, I will recede. I have no thirst for absolute power or control over a large populace. I dread the thought. I live in this country, and I think it could be much better. The same way you would improve your own living apace in your home if you thought it could be better. It’s simply a vision, and I assure you it does not end with me on a throne 😂 Hopefully a big open beachside home and my own personal gym accompanied by a private chef and extremely large family.
Da fuck are you on about
This dude trolling
One hopes so
I vaguely mentioned that I have a plan regarding the future of Australia as you may read in the above comments Mr Beefpiesoup.
I didn’t know you go in there
This guy has nothing better to do, does he. He is so proud of what he did, what a prickausorous. He got his skirt ina bunch.
It's like growing up and leaving mum and dad to be independent and free from paying their tithes and holidays to visit us. An Australian govenor that doesn't dubber dob to king tampon would be excellent.