Whitlam et al

[Cubby]

Thanks for the links Hugh. I was just reading about the Prime Minister being dismissed in 1975. That is so wrong, especially to an American like me. Are Governor's General usually conservative? (Liberal in your case) Labour was in power in Britain at the time, so I don't know if thats connected. Did the Gov. General speak for the British crown or was he independent from them?

I remember a few years ago Australia had a referendum on becoming a republic, I was disapointed that you guys didn't join the US and Canada. What was the main reason the vote failed?

[Platypus]

Canada isn't a republic

It mainly failed because Australia is split into three rougly equal camps. 1 wants the monarchy to remain, 1 wants a US-style Presidential republic, and 1 wants n Indian-style Parliamentary republic. The option put forward in the referendum was the third, and the Presidential-style voters were split, and the referendum failed reasonably narrowly. Most referendums fail though, we've had about 60 and only a handful-less then 10-have passed.

Governor Generals basically don't do anything, which is why Kerr's decision was so shocking. The coalition had blocked supply in the senate (ie, availability of money), and so the money was running out fast, they were really the ones to blame, you could say. Now, all parties have an agreement never to deny supply. I don't believe there was any connection to UK politics, and G-Gs tend to wbe white-haired old men. Some are really good though, like Sir William Deane, and the current one is alright, Michael Jeffrey. The party in government when it's time to appoint a new GG tends to appoint one of their political philosophy; Howard appointed former archbishop Peter Hollingworth to the post at one stage; Hawke appointed former ALP leader Bill Haydn in the 80s.

They don't speak for the British crown, but they're the representative of it...it's sorta impossible to explain the relationship. In a colony, they'd be the direct representative of the queen of england, but because she's also Queen of Australia, it's kinda different...

[Cubby]

Canada isn't a republic

It mainly failed because Australia is split into three rougly equal camps. 1 wants the monarchy to remain, 1 wants a US-style Presidential republic, and 1 wants n Indian-style Parliamentary republic. The option put forward in the referendum was the third, and the Presidential-style voters were split, and the referendum failed reasonably narrowly. Most referendums fail though, we've had about 60 and only a handful-less then 10-have passed.

Governor Generals basically don't do anything, which is why Kerr's decision was so shocking. The coalition had blocked supply in the senate (ie, availability of money), and so the money was running out fast, they were really the ones to blame, you could say. Now, all parties have an agreement never to deny supply. I don't believe there was any connection to UK politics, and G-Gs tend to wbe white-haired old men. Some are really good though, like Sir William Deane, and the current one is alright, Michael Jeffrey. The party in government when it's time to appoint a new GG tends to appoint one of their political philosophy; Howard appointed former archbishop Peter Hollingworth to the post at one stage; Hawke appointed former ALP leader Bill Haydn in the 80s.

They don't speak for the British crown, but they're the representative of it...it's sorta impossible to explain the relationship. In a colony, they'd be the direct representative of the queen of england, but because she's also Queen of Australia, it's kinda different...

I meant that Canada has no connection to the British Crown anymore, at least since 1982, or maybe 1867, not sure when the split became total. Australia is still dependent it seems.

But I'm kind of an Anglo-phile, I didn't think that Hong Kong should have been returned, its sad that they are losing their empire, so I can see both sides of the soverignty issue. I thought the referendum was for the US-style government.

By the way, after 2003 and 2004 fiascos, I no longer believe in public referendums. People are too selfish to think of the needs of others than themselves.

[Platypus]

I meant that Canada has no connection to the British Crown anymore, at least since 1982, or maybe 1867, not sure when the split became total. Australia is still dependent it seems.

Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada.

I think you mean something about the privy council; ie the highest court of appeal being English? If so, it was about '82 that that stopped here,there is no link atm besides the crwon anymore, and even then it's a seperate title that is officially only 'concurrent' with that of England.

[quoy\te]
But I'm kind of an Anglo-phile, I didn't think that Hong Kong should have been returned, its sad that they are losing their empire, so I can see both sides of the soverignty issue.[/quote]

Well, yeah. Their empire still exists, but it's basically just dribs and drabs of islands now. The Commonwealth is pretty big thoguh, but certainly doesn't comapre to the Empire.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope, for a parliamentary Republic. The biggest problem with the referendum is that parliament would've appointed the President. It would have been much more likely to pass if the President was elected, even if they had no signiicant powers. Of course, Howard didn't want it to pass so he tried his best to get it to fail, and succeeded.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps so-but would you leave it up to the politicians? I have more faith in stupid, selfish 'plebs' then in smart, selfish politicos.

[WMS]

By the way, after 2003 and 2004 fiascos, I no longer believe in public referendums. People are too selfish to think of the needs of others than themselves.

Perhaps so-but would you leave it up to the politicians? I have more faith in stupid, selfish 'plebs' then in smart, selfish politicos.

Good man, Hugh. This entire mess was IMHO a counterreaction to a serious case of arrogant judicial overreaching. Not to mention the worst campaigning in recent memory If the Left had compromised on civil unions - which you back as well - the story could have turned out much, much different, with a wave of civil unions expanding rights across the United States. Oh well, I guess we'll never know...