Astronomer

Exactly, I don't see any benefit in becoming a republic at the moment either. Like I said, why try to 'fix' something when it isn't broken? Our political system as worked well for us thus far so why try to change it?

And ha, no offense taken!

I also wonder if Australia became a republic what would happen to New Zealand and if they would follow our decision and become a republic themselves. At the moment Australia has very close ties with New Zealand; as an Australian you are able to reside and work there infinitely without needing a Visa and without having to go through any kind of process at all, and they're in the process of making it possible to travel there without a passport. I wouldn't want anything to jeopardise those ties that we have. (I'm not sure if the changing of our constitution or anything would affect this, but just saying.) I'm happy with the way things are now so I don't see the point in going to such an effort to change them,

__________________

Barnard17

An elected de facto monarch meant to be reined in by checks an balances but gradually increases their power, versus an unelected monarch with little by way of formal regulations but wouldn't dare put a foot out of line because there'd be so much backlash? You confusing legal power with real power.

Don't get me wrong, I think the monarchy should be abolished (from the point of view of a Brit talking about the legal and hereditary position of the monarch in the UK) and see the primary arguments of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and "but think of the tourism revenue!" as being cop outs that stand in the way of democratic progress but judging from the comment you made and the fact your location is in the US (by which I make the assumption that you've lived in a republic all or the vast majority of your life) I think you're somewhat blinkered as to the reality of the situation.

Generally speaking the person with the executive powers signs bills into law or vetoes them, declares war and (in the case of the monarchy) agrees to the creation of each new government and has the power to dissolve them at will. Functionally speaking in a monarchy the option to go against Government will almost never be used because of the furore it would create. A President, with claim to democratic mandate, will in modern times be much more active in what they do. Compare the last use of the executive veto in Britain (300 years ago) to the last use of the executive veto in the US (July 15 '08, March 8 '08 if you only want to count successful use of the veto). The power of the monarchic figure is simply not as supreme as you suggest.

Okay.

Gough Whitlam is democratically elected Prime Minister (in so much as you can be within the Westminster system, though that's another debate entirely). In 1974 the current Governor General (who Whitlam had himself selected) retires and Whitlam appoints a new Governor General (John Kerr).

In 1975 Whitlam wants to pass a budget, he has control of the House but not the Senate. The opposition in the Senate (a democratically elected body) do not want this bill passed. In doing so funding for the Australian Government is cut off, Whitlam's response is the unpopular idea of borrowing the necessary money from the banks until somebody in opposition crumbles and changes their vote to Aye. This is, understandably, quite undesirable.

Kerr (remember him, appointed by Whitlam) wants to avoid this situation. Appoints the opposition as Prime Minister with sole power to get the budget passed (and therefore allow fun stuff like pensions to be paid) and then immediately dissolves Government entirely and holds new elections, in which Whitlam loses a significant portion of the vote and loses the seats to become Prime Minister.

This was not such a massive failure of democracy. The democratically elected Prime Minister personally appoints someone as Governor General, does something really stupid, the Governor General he himself appointed says "hey man, that's not cool. Let the people decide what they think of you now" and then the public also says "hey man, that's not cool. Take the bench for a bit, you kinda suck."

Also, "someone whose position was not at all democratically decided" is a really poor assertion.

Hypothetical situation:

Canada uses the Westminster model and doesn't have a monarchic representative to act has the Head of State. The Prime Minister elect is therefore the Head of State and (by merit of the fact that he's in power and therefore holds a majority of seats and assuming he has an effective whip) can essentially pass whatever he wants.

Some guy, lets call him Reltih, manages to hold a majority of seats. Maybe his party was voted into majority or maybe there was no majority but through coalition he becomes Prime Minister and has a really effective whip. He starts passing laws to make it legal to beat up Muslims (because after 9/11 people are a little more blasé about Islamophobia) and declares that Alaska should be part of Canada (it looks nicer on a map, they speak the same language and hell they were bought of the Russians. BUYING LAND? What an outrage, it looks better on a map of Canada) and begins military proceedings to enact as much. People would act out against it, but Reltih was a smart old chap and created a secret police service that beats up anybody silly enough to do something like protest.

There is no external head of state (no singularly elected President from outside the legislature, no monarchic representative to say "no, that's not gonna happen buddy") to stop all this. Simply put without a monarchy the Westminster system is singularly broken and massively open to abuse.

__________________

mr dave

Rick Mercer is awesome, that's where we stop agreeing

i don't want to derail this discussion too much so i'll keep it short, plus Barnard's post is necessary reading for anyone in this thread.

while the PM and GG roles are more or less as you describe 'on paper', they're essentially reversed in practice. the GG role is ceremonial, their actions usually follow the popular vote and their input comes from requests, not from will. the GG can't just step in and declare Parliament dissolved, the acting PM has to approach the GG's office and make the request.

plus any move to ditch the Monarchy will likely result in another rise of secessionist movements in Quebec and Alberta. Quebec for obvious reasons, Alberta so long as they're booming. YAY! the country splits into a half dozen chunks

__________________
i am the universe

Neapolitan

I've always heard concern from Canadians that if Canada splits some of the Eastern Provinces would have to consider the possibility of joining the USA to survive.

__________________

Scarlett O'Hara

This is a relevant thread to New Zealand too. We have also debated over here whether to become a Republic nation. I personally think the ties and relationships with Britain are more favourable than giving it up when there are no current problems that I know being caused because of us being a commonwealth. Everyone knows we are separately run countries, we can still hold onto our national pride, especially during Olympics and world cups. There are more advantages than disadvantages to be associated with Britain. Even though NZ is perfectly capable of supporting itself.

__________________

mr dave

absolutely, it's already been discussed at a trade level under the name Atlantica. seems like a sensible option if the maritimes don't join Quebec.

i'm also totally down with everything Vanilla just said in regards to Canada and the Commonwealth too.

__________________
i am the universe

Astronomer

Exactly, I agree completely in regards to NZ and Australia. I don't think there are any disadvantages of being a part of the British Commonwealth so don't see why we should be trying to change it.

__________________

loveissucide

Contrary to populat belief,Ireland is not a Catholic country in the means in which various Arab countries are Islamic ones.If it were,the Pope would be our head of state and we'd be a vassal to the Vatican.

__________________
www.last.fm/user/p-mccusker
http://www.mixcloud.com/pmccusker
www.valjester.wordpress.com

right-track

I know that. It wasn't the point I was trying to make.

TheBig3

This is concerning to me. It sounds as if your perception is that the President of the United States is declared supreme leader for four years. As a matter of origin, the the President is routinely denied authority on matter based on our separation of powers.

Part of me is concerned this is somehow coloring your view on Republic's in general. Is it?

__________________
I've moved to a new address