I don't wish to start an argument, however at roughly 9:00 she mentions about the aboriginal peoples had constitutional monarchy forced upon them, which is true, however the United States continued segregation and racism still prevails there long after becoming a republic. Us forming a republic means nothing to do with racism and aboriginal rights.
Hey David! If you get to seeing this I just wanted to thank you for making this video for all us viewers. I’m an American preparing to work in Australia for a few years, and it has been so fascinating learning all about the government there through your channel! Once again, thank you, and please keep on bringing us these amazing videos!
@ I could ask you the same question. A republic means that everything we know this country to be will be lost. Nearly all aspects of our national identity will change either immediately or shortly after becoming a republic. Not to mention the cost of these changes. I love this country and would hate to see it ruined or changed in such a historically unsuccessful way. If anyone isn’t backing Australia, it’s the republicans imo.
@ you want Australia to act like the a gutless little colonial outpost, clinging to the trinkets and baubles of another country’s empire, because, apparently, we do not deserve to be a nation state.
@@davidhallinan6696 hundreds of countries were invaded/ colonised by a foreign power. Literally hundreds. None still cling to that foreign power as pitifully as Australia does.
@@davidhallinan6696 If the majority of Australians identify with republicanism, and really, the only thing that would change would be a reinforcement of the democratic values. I doubt that this will be a negative change per se
The biggest reason I want to leave the UK is Gough Whitlam being removed from power undemocratically, I would also like to see a constitution that put an end to our head of state being replaced without a vote.
Tbf, we held an election immediately after the dismissal where the Australian public very clearly said they were fed up with Whitlam, which was I think the main point of the dismissal (to put forth an election by double dissolution). So we did have a vote on the matter just not immediately
she didn't sell me on the change, the people need to be taught our constitution, before changing it, but she did point out that a PM out of convention, selects the GG, which doesn't sound right.
The PM chooses a nominee for the King/Queen to appoint. The King/Queens approval is merely a formality and by convention they cannot deny the PMs nomination.
Hey, David, thanks for the long form video, I've watched it multiple times. Quite good, liked it. My favourite point of what she brought up was that if tradition is the casting vote, the traditions of the first nations predate and have survived colonialism well before the monarch got here, despite active attempts to stamp them out.
“Please provide evidence that a Republic would work” “That’s scary, numbers focused, distracting arguments” Sorry, but evidence and data matters more than the argument of “Monarchy doesn’t make sense” An individual’s ignorance doesn’t justify dismantling our form of government.
there’s no way a republican movement can have broad support if the position isn’t elected, and that the head of state is ceremonial. PM and President should be joint heads of government w the president having veto power. i really like the choice model of selecting candidates, would revitalise state politics and avoids toxic primaries like in the US which usually requires party membership to vote. Would also be interesting if the choice model required states to hold elections to select candidates which involves the whole state population
Got 15 min and turned off, her speaking style and inflection sounds like I’m being lectured by a public servant, like when an authority figure belittles you for not thinking the right way. Can you redo interview with someone less insufferable from The ARM?
Any dignified nation should control its own governance. Monarchy prevents Australia from doing that. Monarchy means we need the permission of a foreign power and a foreign person.
We were born as a monarchy, our cosntitution in 1901 in a mornarch parlament, this is who we are. Most republics are miserable third world countries and we shall never change our westminster political system. Our essence as a country and the economic power has always been the Australia monarch that we are. Aussie ‘till I die!! 👊🏻
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Thailand, Brunei, and many others would disagree. The British empire certainly did not set those future republics up for success in any capacity. Often when a country has some success in stability, a great power comes in and screws with their stability, making them have to start from ground zero.
Why not preserve the present arrangment with the sole change of removing the Governor-General's connection with the British monarchy? As for "Semi-Presdential Republic", I have no idea what that means.
@@7ismersenneit’s where the President and Prime Minister share the exercise of political power. France is an example of this. This is in contrast to what most Australian republicans want which is a parliamentary republic. Where the President retains a supervisory role over the political system and the Prime Minister is responsible for the day to day political stuff.
The problem is that our current political system works absolutely flawlessly and out of the top 10 most democratic countries we’re in the top 10. The system just works. Even coming from a republican myself a republic should only be considered when every person in this country has a roof over their head. The average every day Australian cares more about that than having a republic. It doesn’t change people’s lives. Changing our political system to be a Parliamentary republic means absolutely nothing unfortunately to the everyday Aussie.
The problem is the Monarchy has only stepped in to interfere with our government a couple times and that's generally when we tried to go "too far" left in the past for the monarchy's taste. We literally can't fix these problems if they continue to interfere like they have.
Thereby is the rub, what we have is very good. I think we should just ignore the fact that there is a nominally a foreigner as "head of state". The Governor General does the job, all we need to do is reinforce that. After all under the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act the monarch and the Brit Government do not have any control (except for a few bits that should not be in the "Constitution"). Just remove the foreign flag from the primary quartile; and have our national day on 9 October (1942) (Vice-Regal assent day for the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act). Do not want an elected dictator "President", Governor General sounds a good name for an Australian head of state.
When i was an adolescent i was deeple moved by God Save The Queen. We are who we are and that type of patriotism of seperating ourselves from monarchy would be so far against what we need to be as a Country.
As discussed near the end the cost of change is not something I can quantify. There'd be at least the cost of the referendum, but we wouldn't give a severance package to the royals. They'd get nothing.
The family doesn't personally own Australia. The royals don't even have personal say over the management of the crown estate. If a country becomes a republic then the crown ceases to have power over it - so how exactly is the royal family meant to demand "compensation" from a country it isn't the head of state of? I'm sorry but the idea that King Charles would get any kind of cash settlement for us becoming a republic is simply not realistic in any way. There's nothing to support that'd even remotely be something anyone would consider.
I don't wish to start an argument, however at roughly 9:00 she mentions about the aboriginal peoples had constitutional monarchy forced upon them, which is true, however the United States continued segregation and racism still prevails there long after becoming a republic. Us forming a republic means nothing to do with racism and aboriginal rights.
also look at France's colonialism, and the Soviet Union's.
They're using monarchy as a scapegoat for their problems
Hey David! If you get to seeing this I just wanted to thank you for making this video for all us viewers. I’m an American preparing to work in Australia for a few years, and it has been so fascinating learning all about the government there through your channel! Once again, thank you, and please keep on bringing us these amazing videos!
Ooo .. how exciting! Have fun in Australia! 🇦🇺🦘
Was waiting for these two videos, cheers!
I am a staunch monarchist but I’m willing to hear the other side out. Probably won’t change my mind
What would it take for you to back Australia?
@ I could ask you the same question. A republic means that everything we know this country to be will be lost. Nearly all aspects of our national identity will change either immediately or shortly after becoming a republic. Not to mention the cost of these changes. I love this country and would hate to see it ruined or changed in such a historically unsuccessful way. If anyone isn’t backing Australia, it’s the republicans imo.
@ you want Australia to act like the a gutless little colonial outpost, clinging to the trinkets and baubles of another country’s empire, because, apparently, we do not deserve to be a nation state.
@@davidhallinan6696 hundreds of countries were invaded/ colonised by a foreign power.
Literally hundreds.
None still cling to that foreign power as pitifully as Australia does.
@@davidhallinan6696 If the majority of Australians identify with republicanism, and really, the only thing that would change would be a reinforcement of the democratic values. I doubt that this will be a negative change per se
She didn't sell me, unpopular opinion, she spoke worse in the monarchist guy. It's great how the videos have been in a longer format.
The biggest reason I want to leave the UK is Gough Whitlam being removed from power undemocratically, I would also like to see a constitution that put an end to our head of state being replaced without a vote.
Tbf, we held an election immediately after the dismissal where the Australian public very clearly said they were fed up with Whitlam, which was I think the main point of the dismissal (to put forth an election by double dissolution). So we did have a vote on the matter just not immediately
"leave the UK" we aren't in the UK.
And if the dismissal was undemocratic, then Whitlam would've been elected in 1975
Another great video! Feels like a no brainer!
Definitely in favour of becoming a republic. Brilliant video as always!!
she didn't sell me on the change, the people need to be taught our constitution, before changing it, but she did point out that a PM out of convention, selects the GG, which doesn't sound right.
The PM chooses a nominee for the King/Queen to appoint. The King/Queens approval is merely a formality and by convention they cannot deny the PMs nomination.
Hey, David, thanks for the long form video, I've watched it multiple times. Quite good, liked it. My favourite point of what she brought up was that if tradition is the casting vote, the traditions of the first nations predate and have survived colonialism well before the monarch got here, despite active attempts to stamp them out.
Love to see it, definitely will recommend
“Please provide evidence that a Republic would work”
“That’s scary, numbers focused, distracting arguments”
Sorry, but evidence and data matters more than the argument of “Monarchy doesn’t make sense”
An individual’s ignorance doesn’t justify dismantling our form of government.
there’s no way a republican movement can have broad support if the position isn’t elected, and that the head of state is ceremonial. PM and President should be joint heads of government w the president having veto power. i really like the choice model of selecting candidates, would revitalise state politics and avoids toxic primaries like in the US which usually requires party membership to vote. Would also be interesting if the choice model required states to hold elections to select candidates which involves the whole state population
A lot of jump cuts. Is there a full version?
This is the only version. A lot of jump cuts are to get rid of pauses and ahs/ums to cut down on time because both interviews were very long.
Just some constructive criticism: the zooming in and out is distracting. Is it her camera?
That's just editing
Got 15 min and turned off, her speaking style and inflection sounds like I’m being lectured by a public servant, like when an authority figure belittles you for not thinking the right way. Can you redo interview with someone less insufferable from The ARM?
Any dignified nation should control its own governance.
Monarchy prevents Australia from doing that.
Monarchy means we need the permission of a foreign power and a foreign person.
no foreign power has any control over Australia. we have the Australia Acts (1986) and the Statute of Westminster (1931) to thank for that.
We were born as a monarchy, our cosntitution in 1901 in a mornarch parlament, this is who we are.
Most republics are miserable third world countries and we shall never change our westminster political system.
Our essence as a country and
the economic power has always been the Australia monarch that we are.
Aussie ‘till I die!! 👊🏻
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Thailand, Brunei, and many others would disagree. The British empire certainly did not set those future republics up for success in any capacity. Often when a country has some success in stability, a great power comes in and screws with their stability, making them have to start from ground zero.
If Australia ever does become a Republic, it should be a Semi-Presidential Republic
Why not preserve the present arrangment with the sole change of removing the Governor-General's connection with the British monarchy? As for "Semi-Presdential Republic", I have no idea what that means.
@@7ismersenneit’s where the President and Prime Minister share the exercise of political power. France is an example of this.
This is in contrast to what most Australian republicans want which is a parliamentary republic. Where the President retains a supervisory role over the political system and the Prime Minister is responsible for the day to day political stuff.
look at whats happening in france and then rethink that...
Her history is woeful.
everything from the ARM is disappointing. a ceremonial governor general style head of state is not going to get people to vote for a republic
The problem is that our current political system works absolutely flawlessly and out of the top 10 most democratic countries we’re in the top 10. The system just works. Even coming from a republican myself a republic should only be considered when every person in this country has a roof over their head. The average every day Australian cares more about that than having a republic. It doesn’t change people’s lives. Changing our political system to be a Parliamentary republic means absolutely nothing unfortunately to the everyday Aussie.
The problem is the Monarchy has only stepped in to interfere with our government a couple times and that's generally when we tried to go "too far" left in the past for the monarchy's taste. We literally can't fix these problems if they continue to interfere like they have.
Thereby is the rub, what we have is very good. I think we should just ignore the fact that there is a nominally a foreigner as "head of state". The Governor General does the job, all we need to do is reinforce that. After all under the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act the monarch and the Brit Government do not have any control (except for a few bits that should not be in the "Constitution"). Just remove the foreign flag from the primary quartile; and have our national day on 9 October (1942) (Vice-Regal assent day for the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act). Do not want an elected dictator "President", Governor General sounds a good name for an Australian head of state.
where was our monarchy, when a political party removed our upper house?
When i was an adolescent i was deeple moved by God Save The Queen. We are who we are and that type of patriotism of seperating ourselves from monarchy would be so far against what we need to be as a Country.
nope
Oh god David please don't do the zoom in/zoom out edits. Hate that style so much and I imagine it wastes a lot of editing time 😅
how much will it cost to leave? surely the windor’s will want a payout for their land.
As discussed near the end the cost of change is not something I can quantify. There'd be at least the cost of the referendum, but we wouldn't give a severance package to the royals. They'd get nothing.
@@AuspolExplained you believe a family that’s held power for a thousand years will give up land for free?
@@jirhoudThey don’t own any land in Australia.
@@JamesVCTHthe crown is the biggest owner of land in Australia
The family doesn't personally own Australia. The royals don't even have personal say over the management of the crown estate. If a country becomes a republic then the crown ceases to have power over it - so how exactly is the royal family meant to demand "compensation" from a country it isn't the head of state of? I'm sorry but the idea that King Charles would get any kind of cash settlement for us becoming a republic is simply not realistic in any way. There's nothing to support that'd even remotely be something anyone would consider.