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

There's a news story todays paper with a breakdown by State here http://www.smh.com.au/news/9911/08/pageone/pageone1.html

Victoria was the only state where the republic vote got a majority (50.1 per cent "yes" vote.).

Interestingly, the majority of support for the republic seems to have come from middle & upper class electorates, & for the existing system from the lower income & regional areas.

;^)#

Maybe the Aussies who want a republic should enlist the rugby team to storm L' Bastille Canberra

"L'Australie, Champions du Monde!"

It worked for the French repuplicans

Obviously the question SHOULD have been "Do you want a republic?" followed by "Which type?". BUT that was never going to be the choice under a monarchist prime minister who had control over the structure of the constitutional convention AND the text of the proposal. It's all very trendy today to blame 'elitist' appointed-president republicans, but let's not forget that in the constitutional convention the model that was just voted down was SUPPORTED by the monarchist representatives because they knew then that it would be an easier model to defeat at a referendum than the populist 'elect-a-president' model (and therefore that model was the only model which the PM's terms required him to put to the people). ie: This has always been about clever political strategy, rather than about information and choice.

The way I look at it, though, the 'No' campaign was a well-run mix of scare tactics and disinformation and DESPITE this there was 45% support for the model put up. Scarce comfort I would have thought for those now claiming the matter has been settled. I still doubt, however, that the political will exists to put a fair, sensible choice to the people in the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, no need to storm "La Bastille Canberra": We voted 63% in favour of the republic!

Last week the NZ Republican Movement began it's campaign to have a New Zealand Republic by 2005. They propose to have two referendums.

The first would put the current set-up against a range of models for a republic.

The second would put the existing system up against the most popular model of republic chosen in the first referendum.

Reading this forum, and speaking to Australian friends/family, this is the choice a lot of Australians would have liked to have had.

A couple of questions. Will ACT ever become a State?

Why didn't the Queen do a victory lap of Cardiff's Millennium Stadium?

Thank you.

So does anyone think the elected-president flavour will fare any better if the Labour party manages to get that choice to the people?

Unfortunately, I think there will be a tendency for the 'any republic is better than no republic' argument may well persuade a republican voters who were previously divided in their support for various models.
Malcolm Turnbull, heard of the Aust Republican Movement, which proposed the appointed president model has been quoted as saying something along the lines of "while I could never support an elected president option, I don't think I would ever campaign against any republican model".

I tend to agree with Bob Carr's proposition that if the referendum/proposal had been restricted to removing the requirement for the Queen to ratify the appoinment & removal of Govenors General then the proposal would have passed - the majority of the changes required for the proposed model were relevant only to changing the name of the GG to President. There's more detail of his proposal here http://www.smh.com.au/news/9911/08/pageone/pageone17.html

;^)#

I think that the referendum WASN'T cost effective - simply because everyone's still arguing about it. If everyone agreed that it was fair and square then (in a perfect world) the ones who were defeated would be quiet (or would have nothing to complain about in terms of how the whole thing was run).

But then we're far from perfect are we?

The real issue, in my opinion, is the bias of the world's maps that make it appear (wrongly) that the world's largest earth mass is in the Northern hemisphere.

Historically these false maps have been wrong.

London to Moscow. Washington to Moscow. Catch a bus or a train. Sydney to Auckland pack a big bag.

Europe, one third the size of Australia. New Zealand a coast line at least twice the sise of the USA.

All maps produced so the Northern hemisphere appears so big are wrong?

An atlas placing the Southern hemisphere at the top would be more accurate.

Of course none of this rave explains why Queen Betty did not do a victory lap after the football

The Map is not the Territory...

Mustapha the Obscure

Heh.. Basically I've just begun reading, but already I like this guy.

right, having read this forum (or at least most of it) i now feel in a position to add my comments to this debate. yes, you should have the republic. Australia (and, for that matter, any other former territory) has a fundamental right to offload that bunch of despisable aristocratic freeloaders, the accursed british royal family, and become its own nation. power to tha people.

Hurrah!

yes!! YES!!! YEEEEESSSSSSS!!!!!

....pity it never happened, though.....(sob)