Monday, 25 January 2010

Nothing ensures a republic would pass in a referendum

Disgraced former Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, seems to be pessimistic about the chances of "a" republic being approved by Australians in a referendum.

In an opinion a piece in The Sunday Telegraph, he re-affirmed his preference for the 1999 republic model that was presented to and rejected by the people. He still strongly believes the best model would be to have the president chosen by Parliament, but acknowledges the compelling "allure" of the direct-elect model.

But it should not be assumed a direct-elect model would ensure the republic would pass, he writes: "Our experience in the the lead-up to the 1999 referendum was that whenever we discussed the issue in a focus group, large or small, support for directly electing the president plummeted as soon as people realised that a successful candidate would likely be a political partisan chosen by what would be, no doubt, a fierce political contest."

Why waste all the time, energy and - not to forget: MONEY that is invested in this republic thing? The existing constitutional arrangements give everybody room to work within the monarchical form of state, some even call this "a crowned republic".

Meanwhile, a Galaxy poll, conducted for Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd. during Prince William's visit, revealed that support for "an" Australian republic has dropped to 44 per cent from last November, when the ARM according to the ABC claimed "support for an Australian republic now stands at 59 per cent". The fall from grace is even greater, when one remembers that ARM's leader Michael Keating told spectators in a TV interview before Prince William's arrival, "80 percent of the Australians" wanted "a" republic. Wishful thinking at its best.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

3 comments:

Professor L said...

I think Keating was referring to the question 'If there were to be an Australian republic, would you prefer Parliament to appoint the president, or direct election?' (80% for direct election).

Of course, no monarchical alternative is provided, so this figure includes monarchists who wouldn't vote for a republic anyway (if given a choice on the matter).

Not that the truth really matters to republicans. :/

1:27 am
radical royalist said...

You are right, in other interviews he was more correct then when I saw him on TV.

Previously he had included Monarchists and then claimeds 80 p.c. would prefer a directly elected president.

1:49 am
ZAROVE said...

And his other statement is why I am a Monarhcist.

"Our experience in the the lead-up to the 1999 referendum was that whenever we discussed the issue in a focus group, large or small, support for directly electing the president plummeted as soon as people realised that a successful candidate would likely be a political partisan chosen by what would be, no doubt, a fierce political contest."

The biggest problem I see in a Republic is the fact that Elections divide the naiton rather than Unify them. President Barrack Obama in the US, for example, has spawned Tea Party protestors and other assorted COnservatives to greatly pposehim, and is one of the most partisain adn divisive figures n America now. SO is Sarah Paloiin only int eh reverse. Elections only yeild us Politicans who come otu of and represent a political aprty and it sinterests, and by nature are goign to lead to the exclusion of those form ohe other party.

Electiosn elad to greater problems than Monarhcy becayse the Crown isnt behoden to a party and oesnt belogn to a Faction.

2:07 am

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)