Aussie republicans claim not to be afraid of Tony Abbott

If it weren’t for their adherence to an obscure ideology, one could feel sorry for the Australian republicans.
It was only on 26^th July 2013 that David Morris, national director of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) told AAP (published in The Australian):

 “... when we try and talk about Australia (and a republic) the media has no interest."

Morris said: "It's very depressing."

A month later he gave another interview to AAP published by Ninesmn on 26th August, Abbott 'won't set backrepublican cause' , this time to claim:

“The head of Australia's republican movement says the cause would not be hurt by Tony Abbott, a monarchist, becoming prime minister.

“If the polls are right, a man who once headed Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy is on track to become the next prime minister.

“But Australian Republican Movement national director David Morris says Mr Abbott's potential elevation to the top job would be unlikely to set back the cause of constitutional change."

By this claim Mr Morris contradicts the July article, where The Australian published these figures:

“In the early 1990s some 70 per cent of Australians wanted a republic while 30 per cent were monarchists.

“But since the failed 1999 referendum, support for a republic has dropped to about 40 per cent.”

In January 2013 The Age quoted Mr Morris with these remarks:

"The Australian Republican Movement's national director, David Morris, said republicanism had been off the agenda since the referendum because of a ''complete lack of political leadership''.

"Mr Morris said the movement was launching a new campaign, with the slogan ''Our identity: who do we want to be?'' and would focus on Australians ''growing up'' and gaining their independence."

Did anybody take notice of the ARM’s identity campaign? It left no impact here. The ARM launched the campaign in October 2012 in Hobart and went public with an ARM sponsored opinion poll that hardly showed their strength. The Age reported under the headline Republic? Young want to keep it in the (royal) family:

"They were the hope of the republican side - confident young Australians with weak emotional ties to Britain increasingly taking over from ageing monarchists and putting the next referendum on the issue beyond doubt. It hasn't quite worked out that way.

"Research commissioned by the Australian Republican Movement shows that 45 per cent of Australians under 30 want a republic - fewer than any other age group apart from those 70 or over. Strongest support, at 54 per cent, is among baby boomers, particularly men.

"Moreover, young people are much more positive towards the Queen. As one young participant in a focus group put it, she is ''like a mother figure''. If Australia became a republic, ''we'd feel as though we'd lost a family'', said another.

"Nevertheless, he concedes that the research is sobering. Or, in the words of UMR Research, which did the polling, ''the Australian Republican Movement's task is massive''.

The research shows that while 48 per cent of voters overall favour a republic, only 18 per cent are strong supporters. The same proportion rate the issue as very important, but they are more likely to be monarchists than republicans. As UMR put it, ''As passion grows, republican support declines.''

It is more likely, that David Flint’s remarks on Tony Abbott are closer to reality and the improbability of any republican progress under a possible Prime Minister Tony Abbott. He wrote:

"On Wednesday afternoon, instead of prepping for the debate, writes Mark Baker in The Age 24 August, 2013 (Tony) Abbott took himself to the northern outskirts of Brisbane to mingle with members of the Pine Rivers Memorial Bowls Club. He thoughtfully brought a framed portrait of the Queen to replace the one that went missing during renovations a couple of years ago.

''The monarch is a great symbol of unity. The Crown has served us well,'' said Tony Abbott, as the bowlers voted with applause."

But an election is only finished, when the last votes are counted. And referenda are not won by the assertion of either side, that they have a majority only because one of their numerous self-organised opinion polls claim they'd had a majority.

Envious republicans

Everybody is entitled to a holiday. A Royal or a president, a few weeks away from daily routine are necessary for everyone. Well paid critics in the media or in politics are less generous, they try to sew dispute.

This holiday season in the Northern hemisphere saw two cases of envious reporting.

US president Barack Obama’s wife Michelle and daughter Sasha were were on a four-day visit and stayed at the five-star Villa Padierna, rated as one of the world's top 30 hotels, with 40 friends. The party has reserved 60 rooms. The First Lady went to the city of Granada and enjoyed the spectacular Alhambra Palace. Mrs Obama and her daughter also paid a visit to Spain's King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia at their summer palace on the island of Majorca, a short flight from Marbella.
From the website of the Casa de Su Majestad el Rey: Sus Majestades los Reyes y Su Alteza Real la Princesa de Asturias, acompañados de la primera dama de los Estados Unidos de America, Michelle Obama y su hija, Sasha

Mrs. Obama left no doubt that this was a private tour at her own expenses. Fair enough and the Kingdom of Spain is worth more than one visit. She will certainly be welcome whenever she wants to return to the Iberian Kingdom.

Some 250 Spanish officers and military personnel protected the Obamas during their stay. They include police divers, bomb disposal experts and dog handlers. About 70 US Secret Service agents are also in Marbella, some of them dressed undercover as tourists.

US Republicans have criticised Mrs. Obama for taking a holiday in the Kingdom of Spain instead of visiting the Gulf of Mexico. While the US security staff was paid by the US taxpayers, the cost of the 250 Spanish security personnel was shouldered by the Spaniards, and despite the country’s dire financial situation there was not criticism about the unknown bill.

Had this happened in Australia, would the republicans be up in arms against the expenditure for a foreign tourist? Certainly not, if it was a family member of a foreign republican head of state. What would they have made of the second example.

This July the Australian Royal Family had a cruise around the Western Highlands and islands of Scotland on the Hebridean Princess, a converted ferry. The Queen has paid £300,000 out of her own pocket, but that did not cover the security surrounding her, including the protective shadowing of her vessel by a Royal Navy frigate and divers.

In August 1979 Lord Mountbatten, Prince Philip’s uncle, was killed when the Irish Republican Army blew up his boat.(Sinn Féin vice-president Gerry Adams said of Lord Mountbatten's death: “The IRA gave clear reasons for the execution.”) The Royal Family is still on many terror groups’ death list. In civilised countries security measures are paid by the public for ex-prime ministers like Tony Blair as well as for authors like Sir Salman Rushdie. Only the Royal Family is always under criticism, because of the cost to protect their lives.

Gerald Warner:

„ ... By an extraordinary coincidence that [amount of money] is precisely what the frigate would have cost if it had carried out the same exercises purely in theory, without the presence of the Queen to make them more focused and realistic. The only way to avoid costs would have been to put the ship in mothballs which, with our services currently so overstretched, would hardly be practical. Don’t forget the divers! snivel the critics. Right, so, Royal Navy divers should never venture into the water, on grounds of expense – is that the idea? Should our divers keep their flippers dry while any terrorist who can use a snorkel attaches limpet mines to the vessel carrying half of the royal family?
Or if al-Qaeda were to raid the ship and hold the royal family hostage, would that be less expensive?”

Imagine, the Royal Family had decided to take a holiday in Australia, just like Michelle Obama wanted her time off in the Kingdom of Spain. The republicans would be running amok, crying foul and murder over the cost for a couple of security officers who would have to be paid anyway, since in analogy to Gerald Warner, they would have cost the same amount sitting at stand-by.

Republicans – in the US and in Australia or in the UK for that matter – just play political games, and very cheap and obvious ones as well.

Surprise, surprise

John Warhurst, senior deputy chairman of the Australian Republican Movement, came to the rescue of the Murdoch media’s failed attempt to cause a stir.

The Australian was his familiar platform to accuse “opponents and Buckingham Palace of ‘muddying the waters’. ‘The position is inherently complicated, and Australians will find it hard to believe that we don't actually have an Australian as head of state,’ Warhurst said.”

Well, as explained here, The Queen of Australia is of course Australian, just as she is Canadian, Barbadian or Jamaican.

We do need to remind republicans that the Queen is a symbol of multiculturalism and multi-nationalism. As it seems, republicans have great difficulties with that concept.

Quotes on Turnbull

When Malcolm Turnbull pushed aside the then Leader of Her Majesty’s Australian Opposition Brendan Nelson, the media welcomed him frantically:

Sydney Morning Herald, 16th September 2008: The rise and rise of Malcolm Turnbull

The Daily Telegraph, 17th September 2008: Australia's conservative opposition elects republican as leader

Australia's conservative opposition party has elected a staunch republican as its new leader in a move which increases the likelihood of the Queen being dumped as the country's head of state.

Republicans now head both of Australia's main political parties after multimillionaire former merchant banker Malcolm Turnbull was named leader of the opposition.

Mr Turnbull chaired the Australian Republican Movement from 1993 to 2000 and led the failed 1999 campaign to make Australia a republic in a referendum.

But very soon after his assuming of the new position, the honeymoon turned sour.

The Age, 23rd October 2008:
Turnbull's poor judgement puts the spotlight back on him

The Age, 20th February 2009:
Turnbull's authority takes a battering after a week from hell

Malcolm Turnbull had some tumultuous times when he led the republican movement but there could have been none worse than this week from hell. His Liberal Party turned cannibalistic. ... Turnbull can only be appalled at the havoc, especially as much of it is his own creation.

The Australian, 20th June 2009:

Malcolm Turnbull, the preferred candidate of everyone in the left-liberal commentariat from Phillip Adams to Michelle Grattan, is now ensconced as the least conservative leader to head the conservative side of Australian politics.

The Age, 18th September 2009:

Indeed, the week of Turnbull's first anniversary as leader has turned into a total disaster for him and a celebration of the man he ousted. Nelson, whose leadership was undermined by Turnbull over emissions trading, gave his successor a double blast on the issue - warning against any deal on the legislation before the Copenhagen conference, first in the party room and then in his last parliamentary speech. A deal is just what Turnbull is battling to get.

When he delivered his valedictory to a packed house on Wednesday, Nelson was treated like a hero. Turnbull was forced to sound gracious to the man who recently described him as having ''narcissistic personality disorder''. These farewells can often be surreal but this one was extraordinary. It was the same later at the party room drinks. The affection for Nelson was obvious. Turnbull knows that's not how his colleagues feel about him.

Sunday Herald Sun, 28th November 2009: Malcolm Turnbull's biggest mistake was joining the wrong party

Liberal Party members see Turnbull as brilliant, brash, multi-skilled and charismatic on one hand and arrogant, divisive and a spiv always looking for deal on the other.

The Age, 29th November 2009: When being the smartest man in the room is not enough

Turnbull's lack of political skills has let him down.

The Age, 2nd December 2009: A mad era best forgotten - along with Hewson and Latham

Turnbull inflicted more damage on his colleagues than Kevin Rudd ever did.

In November 2007, I [Peter Costello] conducted the ballot for Liberal leader that Brendan Nelson won by three votes. No sooner had I declared the result than Malcolm Turnbull disputed it. And told me that Brendan Nelson was not up to the job.

I suggested that Brendan had won fairly, that Malcolm should accept the result and that if Brendan was as bad as he said, then the party would turn to him. ''Put in an outstanding performance as shadow treasurer and you will win over your colleagues,'' I said.

Malcolm left the room and went down to Brendan's office to give him a free character assessment. The leaks and the backgrounding started from that day. Malcolm's supporters were ruthless in tearing down Nelson. Weakened by this campaign and suffering poor polls, Nelson called another ballot. Turnbull won by four votes. In total, only three votes moved. It was an ominous sign. He got there, but not by building support among his colleagues.

The past fifteen months have shown, how a darling of the media, a republican messiah even, fell from grace and is now seen - even by his republican mates - as a disaster!

Turnbull is gone - and Queen Elizabeth II is still Queen of Australia!

Chief republican doubts Australia would drop the Monarchy over the next 20 years

In an interview with The Brisbane Times John Warhurst, a political scientist and senior deputy chairman of the Australian Republican Movement, expressed his doubts that Australia would drop the monarchy over the next 20 years:

"Prof Warhurst called for the campaign to be revived, but rated the chance of success at only one in three.

"He doubted Australia would drop the monarchy over the next 20 years, and thought that whoever won the next election, be it Kevin Rudd or Malcolm Turnbull, would not press the issue next term.

"Voters were not very interested in the republic question, Prof Warhurst admitted."

What do Australian Republicans stand for?

Barry Everingham never disappoints you. In recent weeks I missed his republican propaganda articles, but there he was again, as I expected: On Australia Day. “Barry Everingham is a Melbourne commentator and a republican” as he was introduced with the common phrase by The Age for his usual republican opinion pieces. “That a monarch still rules us is embarrassing for a modern nation. … The time has come for Australians to look seriously at our constitutional arrangements and change them to bring us into the 21st century.” Never mind that the republican system also dates back more than 2,000 years to the Roman era, a well functioning monarchical system is as adequate for the 21st century, which began eight years ago, as it has been the centuries before.

He also repeats an opinion poll that was paid for by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and had achieved the results that pleased the orderer: “Late last year a poll of 2000 people found 50 per cent supported making Australia a republic while 28 per cent were opposed. Eighty per cent of those polled were in favour of a head of state chosen by the people, the model that presents the most constitutional complications.” If this opinion poll were as decisive as Barry Everingham and the ALP make us believe, then why do they want to ask the same question in an unconstitutional plebiscite? Why waste the taxpayers' money, when everything is so clear as this opinion polls suggested? Why do they not want to go the right way and put a referendum to the people and have the people decide what they want as it is the proper way, the constitutional way?

However, Barry Everingham noticed: “The burning issue is not being helped by either ACM [Australians for Constitutional Monarchy] or the Australian Republican Movement (ARM); neither organisation seems geared to attracting publicity for their respective causes, which is confusing in the ARM's case given that our major news outlets are pro-republic.” Had Barry had a look at AR’s website recently, he could have noticed that there hasn’t been an update for the past three months. When I checked ARM’s website yesterday, the most recent update I could find was done in October 2008.

He was even less attentive to ACM’s website, which according to Barry Everingham “carries daily commentary by the group's ‘convenor’, Professor David Flint, which in the main revolves around British and European royalty”. To be fair, I must admit I did not make a statistics on ACM’s topics, but in my judgement “British and European royalty” take less than a third of all topics. The Australian agenda is evident for everyone who follows David Flint’s send outs regularly.

But someone like Barry Everingham, who does not seem to miss ARM’s send outs, cannot be expected to follow the regular Monarchist opinion pieces. Nobody has been more productive in handing out information on the Constitutional Monarchy in Australia than David Flint. Everybody knows, what he stands for and form an opinion of their own.

Does the same go for any republican?

After reading Barry Everingham, I have only a vague guess that he might like some republican model leaning towards the US presidential system. But he does not say it explicitly: “America's system is not perfect, but it's theirs. It is also high time to assume the dignity of being our own people with a modern constitution and an Australian head of state.”

Does this give you a clue what he wants?

The Coat of Arms of Barbados was adopted upon independence in 1966 by decree of Queen Elizabeth, Queen of Barbados. Like other former British posessions in the Caribbean, the coat of arms has a helmet with a national symbol on top, and a shield beneath that is supported by two animals.

Republicans are braggarts

Republicans are braggarts. All the time and everywhere. Do you need proof? Here's the latest example for my assertion.

When republicans live in a Monarchy and work for its destruction, they claim the “vast majority” does not identify with the institution, the Monarchy is old fashioned and outdated, nobody is interested in the Royal Family and their duties, etc.

But when it comes to a referendum to introduce a republic, the great reformers suddenly shriek off and turn frightened to use the “r”-word. After all, it IS a frightful word connected with lots of atrocities throughout its history of the past 229 years. Look at all those fabolous republics from Zimbabwe via Pakistan to China.

What do republicans do when they call for a referendum, and when they try to avoid the simple question: “Do you want a Monarchy or a republic?”? They use a manipulative trick which indicates that they aren’t very certain about their cause:

The Deputy Prime Minister of Barbados has announced via the Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation that when the country goes to the polls in nine months, a referendum on whether the country should become a republic will be held concurrently. According to an unsourced statement on Wikipedia, the question is to be:
"Do you believe Barbados should have a Barbadian as its head of state?"

A perfidious question because it infers that everyone who votes NO and who wants to retain the Monarchy was Un-Barbadian, anti-national, unpatriotic.

The proposed question is far from a being a fair question if the Barbadians want the Monarchy or a republic. It does not address what relationship there should be between the people of Barbados and the Crown, but it is pure and unashamed populism. It is malicious. How will the Monarchists of Barbados lead their campaign for a “foreign Head of State”. Even though the Queen of Barbados is no foreigner, but as Barbadian as any other Barbadian, the supporters of the Monarchy will have a hard time to organise a referendum campaign.

Once again this example shows that republicans refer to referenda won by republicans as fair and open (Italy 1946 or Greece in 1973/74), however, in cases where the Monarchists won, they were manipulated (Australia 1999, Spain 1947, Greece 1935 and again 1946).

Republicans are bad losers. And never fair players, I may add.

As "un-Australian" as only republicans can be!


As could be expected on Australia Day, The Age gave space to another republican columnist. Ted O'Brian, national chairman of the Australian Republican Movement, tried to portray the Queen of Australia as “un-Australian”. Being of German origin this term reminds me of a not so glorious time in German history when being styled “un-German” could be a death sentence. I am sure Ted O’Brian didn’t have that in mind, because republicans tend to have a rather narrow perspective when it comes to historic parallels.

In his opinion piece (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/our-leader-the-queen-how-unaustralian/2007/01/25/1169594429539.html) he doesn't give us a a clue as to what kind of republic he wants for Australia. He could only – and not for the first time – tell the readers why he was against the Australian monarchy.

And of course he didn’t refer to existing republics and their faults.

I recall three recent and very appalling failures of republican rule:

The president of Israel, Moshe Katsav, was asked to step down due to allegations that he raped up to ten women. He refused and instead asked the speaker of parliament to grant him “temporary leave”. So President Katsav is “on leave”.

He is following ingloriously along the same path as his predecessor who also had to step asided over corruption issues.

In France President Jacques Chirac has initiated a new law that would grant a president immunity from all prosecution “except treason”. Isn’t it wonderful, how a president who got 21 percent of the votes with a turnout of 56 percent of the population controls the French congress (a combined sitting by assemblée nationale and senate)? Laws are passed to make it impossible for any prosecutor to call the president to court. Even as a witness (s)he wouldn’t have to face a judge.

The third example is the US president, who is his own prime minister, trying to explain to Congress how to face the challenges of climate change and the war in Iraq.

He gave a helpless speech demonstrating once again how a partisan head of state divides a nation.

Australia Day is the time to reflect the advantages of our Monarchy. Very correctly Christopher Scanlon (The Age, 25 Jan.) lamented “having put everything up for grabs in the economic sphere … governments feel compelled to bolt down the national culture”.

Thankfully the position as the Australian head of state is not up for grabs.

Let’s face facts! In a republic only multi-millionaires can afford to run for the presidency and they need media support.

Should Rupert Murdoch decide who’ll be Australian president?

I will always prefer a monarch to a handpicked "mate" who is to the liking of the rich few.