h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In a few weeks, my fair nation of Australia will be having a referendum in which the nation decides whether or not to become a Republic.

A lot of people are saying their whys or why nots and I thought it fitting to bring this debate to the hallowed halls of h2g2.

What does everyone think about our little island. Should we give Her Mag the big heave ho or not?

From the stories I've heard her presence in AU is really only a figment of the rest of the world's imagination anyway. Some did it 200 years ago, so why not?

Agreed. Billy Connelly put it best last time he toured. "You might as well become a republic. Britian already thinks you are."

When you think about it, it's not exactly as if they really wanted anything to do with the people they sent to 'colonize' it anyway.

The trouble with switching to republicanism is that you have to find a president, and after that, whether you want an actual Head of State/Commander-in-Chief as in America or a figurehead. In New Zealand, there isn't a single politician out of the current batch that I would want to see have that kind of power.

What are the other alternatives? Establish an independent monarchy or a consulship like they had in that other great Republic - Rome.

Heh.. If you really believe the President is actually in charge, we sure have -you- fooled!

What have the NZ Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, Chief Justice, chief executive of the largest private company and boss of the largest government agency got in common? They are all females.

The sooner Australia becomes a republic, installs Rolf Harris as President For Life, and invades NZ the better off all of us will be.

NZ was the 1st country to give women the vote. We should go for the double. Become the 1st country to take the vote off them.

We could then become a republic and install legendary All Black hero Colin Meads, as our 1st president.

The Republic suggested for Oz at this point suggests that the President would not be one like the US. The Prime Minister is still in charge but instead of the Governer General (a sort of figurehead bloke who represents the Queen and opens bridges and stuff), we just get some person to represent us instead (and open bridges and stuff).

The last time the GG was actually used over here was to get rid of our Prime Minister because some thought he was not doing a good enough job (though many hailed him as a bit of a saviour figure. Still do.). That was 1974.

So personally I don't think it'll change much over here. We'll still get into the Commonwealth games. We might have to take the Queen off the 'heads' side of our coins, but that's about it.

....and the word "Royal" off the mail, SPCA and other poseur organisations.

Ireland has the type of President Australia, and eventually NZ, is aiming for although in Ireland they tend more to opening bottles of Guiness than bridges.

Occassionaly the Irish president attempts to build bridges over troubled waters but they do very little to bridge the income gap between poor and rich.

No more mail with 'OHMS' written at the top. I think the President shouldn't be elected by the Government. It should be the winner of a drinking contest. Go Ireland!

Another person suggested President of the Day, where everybody gets a chance. Name drawn out of a hat sort of thing. Big hat. The results are posted on telly the night before. "Oh! Mrs Miggins from down the corner is President today! Won't that be nice!"

Sounds excellent.

Today's Foster's Australian President Of the Day is Mrs Miggens of Miggens corner bottleshop on Corkscrew Drive in Drinkmore.

Her winning policy as drawn on the XXXX Big Breakfast Show is to remove tax from beer.

Huzzah for Mrs Miggens. She should be President for the Victorian Bitter Labour Weekend.

Fosters?? Oh come, now. They're not hailing this thing for the tourist, ya know.

No, but it is about finding the essence and spirit of a nation. And while beer isn't technically a spirit, it is very close to the heart, or rather the belly, of your average Ozzie (or Kiwi). Like the Boston Tea Party, you could have a Sydney Habour Beer Party, or in NZ, Chundering Across the River Waikato as Washington might have done over the Delaware had he been hideously drunk at the time.

I don't think changing to a republic will change anything in Australia. It wont improve anyone's way of life to any extent.

Would spending the several hundred's of millions of dollars currently being spent on the 'debate' on something 'meaningless' like health, education or whatever change anyone's way of life - very possibly.

Personally I think the taxpayer funded republic debate is a waste of money when there are better things it could be spent it on.


;^)#
sorry
/* idiot mode resumed */

Anonymouse speaks truly though. Fosters should not represent the nation. It should be Crown Lager.

I like your thinking Bruce, though I still think we should become a Republic. Is there a cheaper way of doing it so that we can use the money on frivolous things such as education or health?

If things go badly enough in East Timor, Indonesia might think about giving us a republic for free

I really, don't think that changing the current system will affect anything - effectively the change to a republic is only changing the names of the office holders.

Independance is a state of mind - not the name on the office door

If it's going to be changed a referendum & the associated cost is the only way to do it. Though of course each of the states will need to agree (& until they do the republic of Australia won't have a queen but some of the member states will) & that will mean even more referendums & $$s

;^)#

Let me get this right. If a state, say Queensland , decided to vote 'no' but everyone else votes 'yes', does this mean that they dip out as a state, while everyone else has republic parties? That's my interpretation of what you've said. But I've been wrong many times before so why shouldn't this be any different.

As for Indonesia, I don't think a republic would be what they had in mind.

If the boss has already been changed, then changing the name on the door is just a way of tidying up.

Backing up a little guys.

Fosters was mentioned because an Australian Republic deserves an Australian beer.

Not one owned by a New Zealand company.

A state could possibly choose secede, leaving Australia with a potential "Northern Ireland" problem. If 80% of the population want to go ahead with it, should the remaining 20% hold them back?

And I agree with Bruce that changing the system doesn't necessarily mean a change for the better. NZ changed its electoral system that it would it improve the quality of politician, but we still got the same bunch of idiots who decided to do their own thing once they got in.