The Defeat of the Republic Referendum 20 Years Ago

The 6th November marks the 20th anniversary of the failed republic referendum of 1999. It was the accumulation of around eight years of hard campaigning essentially on a daily basis and was a learning curve for all, even for those lawyers involved.

Nearly all of the campaigners were amateurs. Even the politicians had no expertise in a referendum proposing changes as drastic as this. The last time there were referendums was in 1988 when the Hawke government submitted four proposals to the people. These four were on parliamentary terms, fair elections, local government and rights and freedoms, all of which were rejected by the people and all of which were totally unlike the republic referendum which, in itself, required nearly 70 changes to the Constitution.

Campaigning was essentially based along Liberal for the No case and Labor for the Yes case. Whilst the Yes case also had a number of senior Liberals actively involved, the No case comprised only token Labor identities. This was totally at odds with the eventual vote when, as is estimated, one third of Labor voters voted No to a republic.

The Australian Monarchist League, which did not form a part of the official No case and did not share in any of the government funding, campaigned, using its own resources, predominantly in the outer suburban typically Labor electorates, in the country areas and in the smaller states like Tasmania, which seemed to have been written off, but all of which resulted in an overwhelming No vote as opposed to the city Liberal electorates which voted Yes.

However, it was the vote of traditional Labor that swung the pendulum against a republic. Traditional Labor have always been deeply conservative in the traditional sense. Unlike so many trendy Liberals, they honour the Queen and respect our constitutional system of governance. In the 1990s, we knew this because a significant proportion of our supporters were – and still are - Labor voters.

The nationwide vote in the 1999 referendum was 54.87% No (against the republic) which may not seem much but if a political party received that vote in a general election, it could well result in winning 72% of all electorates. It is rare that a political party receives over 50% of the total primary votes cast in any general election.

Furthermore, all six states voted No as did the Northern Territory. Only the Australian Capital Territory voted Yes, but as a territory it did not qualify as a state.

Since 1999, republicans have continued to mount campaigns and the Australian Monarchist League has continued to oppose them whilst, at the same time, promoting the benefits and security of our system of constitutional monarchy.

To celebrate the anniversary of the defeat of the republic referendum, the Australian Monarchist League is not holding a conference with lengthy speeches bragging about the victory because the defeat of the referendum was not really due to monarchists but more to the wisdom of the people who, resiling against such massive change, opted to place their trust in the Queen.

Instead, we are holding a dinner on a tall ship sailing around Sydney Harbour on Thursday the 14th of November, enjoying the fact that we remain a constitutional monarchy.

Philip Benwell
National Chair
Australian Monarchist League

The Queen is not a foreign power, she is above citizenship

Following the latest attempts of Australian republicans to replace the Constitutional Monarchy with an unknown republican regime, The Australian Monarchist League today published the following media release:

Mr Bill Shorten last night launched an attack on the Queen accusing her of being a foreign power. If he truly believes that then what worth is his word when he swore to bear true and faithful allegiance to the Queen when he took his seat in the parliament?

“I, William Richard Shorten do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!”

The fact is the Queen is Queen of Australia by right of the Australian Constitution. Both she, as sovereign head of state and the Governor-General, who upon appointment assumes the role of effective head of state, must accept the directions of the Australian ministers of the Crown provided those directions are in accordance with the Australian Constitution. The Queen is not a foreign power, she is the Queen and therefore is above citizenship.

Philip Benwell
National Chair
Australian Monarchist League

Also see blog entry: Her Majesty, World Citizen

"Labor vows vote on republic" - Yawn!

The key players in the Battle Royal: Prince Charles and Duchess Camilla, the future King and Queen of Australia, Malcolm Turnbull, present Prime Minister and main loser of the 1999 republic referendum, his wife Lucy, and Bill Shorten, ALP Leader of the Opposition and wanna-be Prime Minister who wants to take the Monarchy away from the Australians to replace it with some sort of a republic.

The Saturday Age's headline "Labor vows vote on republic" is hardly newsworthy. The editorial in the same paper unsurprisingly comes to Labor's aid: "Opposition leader Bill Shorten is right that Australia should expedite its inevitable transition to a republic." So far, so bad, but all this was said and written before.

What neither Bill Shorten nor The Age are telling the bored audience is the answer to the question: WHAT kind of republic do you want? The Constitutional Monarchy Australia has enjoyed since becoming an independent country in 1901 has given a frame work everybody knows - even if some people dislike it. But to give this up and wander off to unknown territory will not easily be done by the Australians. Out of 44 referenda to change the constitution, only eight were successful.

Mr. Shorten knows this, therefore he wants a plebiscite with the question: "Do you support an Australian republic with an Australian head of state?" - to be followed by a second vote after that would settle on the tricky topic of the best model. When will Mr. Shorten let us know, which model he prefers? There's no indication anywhere what kind of president he would like to have (or he would like to be?).

In this plan neither Mr. Shorten nor the Fairfax media rule in a "No!" vote in the plebiscite. This is a more than likely assumption considering that the opinion polls do not favour the republicans, despite their loud claims they would speak for the Australian people. They are nowhere near the 50 percent threshold for their cause.

That poses the question: Will they give up their useless efforts to replace our Constitutional Monarchy with "a" republic? Isn't the US example of a republic not frightening enough?  Why not donate their millions to a worthy cause instead of spending it on their media advisers and the likes?

Or to say it in the words of Taylor Gramowski in the Spectator, "Flogging a dead horse republic": The ARM and Labor need to stop flogging a dead horse, concede defeat and move on.

Prince Charles and Duchess Camilla in 2015 at Government House, Sydney.

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 35 years an independent Dominion

On 27th October 1979 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, a territory that had been a British colony since 1783, gained independence as a Dominion. Since then Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has been head of state as Queen of St Vincent and the Grenadines.

In 2009 politicians tried to replace the Monarchy with as republic, but this proposal was defeated in a popular referendum. 29,019 votes (55.64 per cent) voted for the Monarchy, while 22,493 (43.13 per cent) gave preference to a politicians' republic.

Congratulations to the people of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on their independence day and on their wise decision to remain a Constitutional Monarchy. 

Today a republican - gone tomorrow

Yesterday the Australian federal Treasurer Wayne Swan stated his republican creed:

"The time may not indeed be right for an immediate referendum, but it is my belief that it is always the right time to argue for the merits of a republic and prepare the ground for future constitutional change. The road to an Australian republic is a long one, without a timetable, and so the journey must continue.

"The case for a republic is as simple as it is compelling, and one that I have been making since my maiden parliamentary speech in 1993."

Funny that he referred to his maiden speech, since yesterday's press conference might be the preface of his swan song, his last political statement. Today he is faced with a disastrous opinion poll "Swan likely to lose seat amid Queensland Labor despair" (The Age, 4th June 2013):

"Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan looks set to lose his Brisbane seat of Lilley for a second time, with internal polling suggesting Labor will struggle to retain any Queensland seats north of the Brisbane River at the September 14 federal election.
"The results are so dire for Labor that a ''worst case'' scenario suggests Kevin Rudd could become Labor's ''last man standing'' in Queensland, with the former prime minister the only Queensland MP who is seen as likely to retain his seat.

"The Queensland polling, taken in recent weeks in Mr Swan's electorate, is believed to show that his primary vote has collapsed to just 28 per cent, compared to 41 per cent at the last election.

"Mr Swan has held the seat since 1998, although at the last election his margin narrowed from 8 per cent to 3.2 per cent, with a 10 percentage point fall in his primary vote."

Let's hope for the best that could happen. Wayne Swan will lose his seat in September and have a lot of time afterwards to become a full time republican propagandist. Or should we say "itinerant preacher"? Even The Age's editorial admitted today: "The increasing likelihood is that a federal Coalition government led by Tony Abbott, an ardent monarchist, would consign a republic to the political deep freeze for at least a few more years. "

No need to feel sorry - neither for Mr. Swan nor for The Age. This letter to the editor says it all:

According to internal polling, Wayne Swan is about to receive a well-deserved and long overdue ''efficiency dividend'' from his electorate (4/6). Can't wait.
Lucien Zalcman, North Fitzroy

Seen at Federation Square in Melbourne.

It goes without saying, that The Age, like the ABC, has totally ignored The Queen's Diamond Coronation Jubilee. All they could publish was a re-print from The Sunday Telegraph last Wednesday, 29th May: Working overtime. No wonder, The Age no longer uses the PR sloag: "If it matters to you, it's in The Age." Such an obvious lie wouldn't work anymore.

Forgetful republicans

Coat of arms of King Alphonso XIII

It was a nostalgic event that happened in Madrid's streets last Sunday. 14th April marked the 82nd anniversary of His Majesty King Alphonso XIII's departure from Spain. He went into exile and died in Rome ten years later. Some people cannot get over the past and they shed some tears for the proclamation of the 2nd Spanish republic on 14th April 1931.

While the media sometimes claimed Spanish anti-monarchy rally attracts thousands, a friend of the Radical Royalist, who actually watched the Sunday afternoon stroll, spoke of 300 participants.


A nostalgic group gathered for a Sunday afternoon stroll.

Associated Press quoted Veronica Ruiz, a member of the communist Izquierda Unida (IU): "Nobody elected the king. We want a referendum. It would be the fair and democratic way to find out what the people want."

The indoctrination of the Spanish Communists had full success with her. Her brainwashing led to amnesia, because the Spanish Constitution was unanimously approved by Parliament and voted by 87.8 % of the citizens in a referendum held on 6th December 1978, which provides in article 1 for a Parliamentary Monarchy of the classical liberal European style. On the other hand the 2nd republic, for which the nostalgics marched on Sunday, did not have the overall approval of the Spanish people. They were never asked in a referendum, if they'd prefer a Monarchy or a republic.

Veronica Ruiz and the Izquierda Unida (IU) are certainly aware of the fact, that hardly any republic in Europe was established by the will of the people. Hardly ever was a referendum held that led to the abolition of the Monarchy, neither in Germany, nor in Austria or in Russia, and of course also not in neighbouring Portugal.

The rather dodgy referenda in Italy and Greece, where republicans triumphed over the Monarchist cause, are no show cases of democracy.

Iran bars women from universities

In August Iran’s Ministry of Science, Research and Technology decided to bar women in 36 universities from 77 fields of study, according to state-run media. Female students learned of the curbs when they received their registration letters in recent weeks. Among the now forbidden subjects are nuclear physics and oil engineering, but also English literature, English translation, hotel management, archaeology, computer science, electrical and industrial engineering or business management.

The Nobel Peace laureate of 2003, Shirin Ebadi, wrote in an open letter to the United Nations dated 17th August that the new rules “demonstrate that the Iranian authorities cannot tolerate women’s presence in the public arena. They are trying to push women back to the private sphere of their homes so they may abandon their opposition and legitimate demands.”

The Daily Telegraph reported: “[The ban] follows years in which Iranian women students have outperformed men, a trend at odds with the traditional male-dominated outlook of the country's religious leaders. Women outnumbered men by three to two in passing this year's university entrance exam.

Senior clerics in Iran's theocratic regime have become concerned about the social side-effects of rising educational standards among women, including declining birth and marriage rates.”

Australian media did not take notice of the latest discriminatory act of the Islamic Republic. Not a single line was published in The Age, which claims to be an advocate of equality and feminism. And while politicians find it unacceptable, that private societies like the Melbourne club allow female guests but not women members, the blatant step backwards in Iran caused no stir in Australia’s feminist circles.

Women's rights under the Shah
The Iranian discrimination of women come 33years after the Shah’s reforms were overturned by the newly established Mullah regime. With the Shah Mohammed Reza's departure on 14th January 1979, Iran sank into the darkness of the Middle Ages. A reign of terror, of which the Monarch had presciently warned the nation, set in. The first public act of Ayatollah Khomeini, when he took over the reins of power in February 1979, was to abolish women's right to sit in as a judge in a court of law. He initially dissolved the Ministry of Justice, stating that anyone against him was against Allah and should be killed where they stood - with no need for a trial or other justice system.

The Monarchs of the Pahlavi dynasty had introduced many reforms concerning women's rights. An example of an early reform introduced by HIM Shah Reza I was the “forced unveiling of women” by a special decree on 8th January 1936 which outlawed the hijab. Iranian women increasingly participated in the economy, the educations sector and in the workforce. Levels of literacy were also improved. Examples of women's involvement: women acquired high official positions, such as ministers, artists, judges, scientists, athletes, etc.

Under Shah Mohammed Reza many more significant reforms favouring women were introduced. For example in 1963, the Shah granted female suffrage and soon after women were elected to the Majlis (the parliament) and the upper house, and appointed as judges and ministers in the cabinet. In 1967 Iranian family law was also reformed which improved the position of women in Iranian society. It was included in the civil code and was designed to protect wives, children and female divorcees. The general thrust of the reforms were to promote equality between men and women in society.

Shirin Ebadi (*21 June 1947) was admitted to the law department of the University of Tehran in 1965 and in 1969, upon graduation, passed the qualification exams to become a judge, which she officially became in March of 1969. She continued her studies to pursue a master's degree in law in 1971. In 1975, she was appointed the first woman president of the Tehran city court, and also the first ever woman judge in Iran.

Shirin Ebadi in 1969 after she passed the qualification exams to become a judge.

Following the toppling of the Monarchy Ebadi was demoted to a secretarial position at the branch where she had previously presided. She and other female judges protested and were assigned to the slightly higher position of "law expert." She eventually requested early retirement as the situation remained unchanged. As her applications were repeatedly rejected, Ebadi was not able to practice as a lawyer until 1993, while she already had a law office permit.

Monarchical support from exile

The Iranian Imperial Family offers a whole different concept to the oppressive regime in Tehran. Not only would a Constitutional Monarchy bring a fair and just system to Iran, but the fact, that Shah Reza II has no male off-springs would open the door for a female head of state in Iran.

Empress Farah, the only ever crowned Shahbanu of Iran, said in an interview with the French magazine “Point de Vue” (translated by Diana Mandache and published in her excellent Weblog) Her Imperial Majesty answered the question about her son’s succession:

"In the past we have had several Queens who reigned over Iran. If in the future, ensha-allah (God willing) Iran becomes a free and democratic country, all citizens will have the same rights, our Constitution must be amended in this direction. If the Constitutional Monarchy is restored - which I believe is the best solution for my country- a woman can become Queen or occupy any other situation. It will certainly not be like today where 89 women who were candidates for the presidential elections were refused to present themselves because they were precisely women. The Islamic Republic was not able to banish women from elections or dismiss their right to vote, however many laws that protected their rights have been suspended or modified to their disadvantage. Today an Iranian woman cannot ask for a divorce and if a divorce is pronounced the children are under the father’s responsibility or that of his family. My female compatriots are no more normal citizens. Many jobs or responsibilities are refused to them. Thus a woman cannot be a judge because these gentlemen consider that a woman can never be fair in her judgments. One of our most famous compatriots Shirin Ebadi the Nobel Peace Laureate of 2003, was a judge before the revolution. She was banished from her position by the Islamic Republic, and worst she was forbidden to exercise her job as a lawyer for more than five years."

The Iranian women now not only have the chance to oppose the ruling regime, but to actively promote a female head of state by supporting the Monarchist movement.

Greeks will not be allowed to vote for a Monarchist Party

A total of 32 parties, coalitions and individual candidates will contest the general election on 6th May, following their approval by the Supreme Court (Areios Pagos) on Thursday.

The court banned four parties from taking part: National Hope, PAME in GESEEP [Π.Α.Μ.Ε. στο Γ.Ε.Σ.Ε.ΕΠ.], the Friends of Man, and Citizens Assembly-(Direct) Democracy in Practice.

It is understood that National Hope (ΕΘΝΙΚΗ ΕΛΠΙΔΑ) was prohibited under the electoral law from participating as it is a Monarchist Party.

Less of a problem were strange parties like these:

Communist Party of Greece (Marxist-Leninist)-Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Greece (KKE (m-l)-ML KKE), 

Anticapitalist Left Cooperation for the Overthrow (Antarsya), 

Organisation of Communist Internationalists of Greece (OKDE), 

Workers Revolutionary Party (EEK Trokskyists), Sabetai Matsas

Organisation for the Reconstruction of the Communist Party of Greece (OAKKE).

from: neoskosmos

French Royalists ask supporters to vote for François Hollande

"The directing committee of the Nouvelle Action Royalist (NAR) is happy about the big turn-out of the French in the first round of the presidential election. It welcomes the massive rejection of Nicolas Sarkozy to which the NAR contributed by asking the French  people to vote for Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, who in difficult circumstances has received an honourable result [644,043 votes or 1,79%]. It regrets the success Marine Le Pen achieved by exploiting the betrayel of de Gaulle’s legacy by the classic right, the abandonment of the popular classes by a cast of Socialist managers and and the ravages of ultra-liberalism.

"For the second round of the presidential elections the directing committee of the Nouvelle Action Royalist asked to transform Nicolas Sarkozy’s setback into a final defeat."

 
Voter François Hollande

Le Comité directeur de la Nouvelle Action royaliste se réjouit de la très forte participation des Français au premier tour de l’élection présidentielle. Il se félicite du rejet massif de Nicolas Sarkozy, auquel la NAR a participé en appelant à voter pour Nicolas Dupont-Aignan qui a obtenu, dans des conditions difficiles, un premier résultat très honorable. Il constate avec regret le succès remporté par Marine Le Pen qui exploite la trahison du gaullisme par la droite classique, l’abandon des classes populaires par la caste des gestionnaires socialistes et les ravages de l’ultra-libéralisme.

Pour le second tour de l’élection présidentielle, le Comité directeur de la Nouvelle Action royaliste appelle à transformer le revers de Nicolas Sarkozy en une défaite définitive. Tout au long de ce quinquennat, la Nouvelle Action royaliste a dénoncé l’instauration d’une autocratie brouillonne dénaturant la fonction présidentielle, le durcissement de la guerre sociale menée par l’oligarchie, la destruction méthodique de l’administration centrale, le mépris de l’autorité judiciaire, la xénophobie d’État, la corruption du milieu dirigeant et, sur le plan international, le retour dans l’Otan, l’enlisement sanglant en Afghanistan et l’alignement sur l’Allemagne qui est inscrit dans la lettre des nouveaux traités conçus à Berlin.

Livrée à la concurrence effrénée et déloyale que permet le libre échange, prise dans le carcan monétaire, exposée à la violence de la déflation, la France a été engagée par Nicolas Sarkozy dans un processus à tel point désastreux qu’il est impossible de prendre pour le second tour une position de neutralité. Les critiques que la Nouvelle Action royaliste a adressées au Parti socialiste ont toujours été sévères : elle n’a jamais accepté le tournant de la rigueur de 1983, le ralliement à l’ultra-libéralisme, la dérive oligarchique, les illusions européistes et la croyance en l’euro. Mais il s’agit de choisir le 6 mai un président de la République, non un Premier ministre, sans oublier que l’orientation du nouveau gouvernement sera fonction des résultats obtenus par les différents partis lors des élections législatives.

Quant au choix du président, tel qu’il est défini par l’article 5 de la Constitution, nous avons la certitude que François Hollande saura redonner à la fonction présidentielle la dignité qu’elle a perdue et qu’il retrouvera, dans les négociations internationales, le langage et le comportement d’un chef d’État. Et nous sommes persuadés que le nouveau président, chef des Armées, veillera au retrait rapide et ordonné des troupes françaises positionnées en Afghanistan. Telles sont les raisons décisives qui nous conduisent à appeler les militants et les sympathisants de la Nouvelle Action royaliste à apporter leurs voix à François Hollande.

Cet appel doit être entendu comme un message d’espérance quant aux révolutions que la France peut accomplir à la faveur de l’élection présidentielle et des élections législatives. La crise de l’euro s’aggrave. Elle a pris un tour tragique en Grèce et la logique déflationniste conduira tous les pays qui l’acceptent à la violence sociale et à l’extrémisme politique. Des solutions nouvelles devront être trouvées, avec le soutien du peuple français. Ouverte par François Hollande, la perspective de la renégociation du pacte budgétaire européen et du Mécanisme Européen de Stabilité donne à la France la possibilité de mettre radicalement en question la politique dictée par l’Allemagne, la recherche inepte de l’équilibre budgétaire et les décisions de la Banque centrale européenne.

Nous espérons que le nouveau président de la République ne cherchera pas à obtenir une simple déclaration sur la croissance mais engagera la négociation avec nos partenaires européens après avoir soumis à référendum le traité signé mais pas encore ratifié. Nous espérons que le peuple français confirmera le refus qu’il avait exprimé en 2005 et qui a été ignoré au mépris de la démocratie. Nous attendons de ce choc salutaire une redéfinition de la politique française, selon les objectifs généraux de l’indépendance nationale, de la justice sociale et du développement économique qui nous permettront de retrouver le sens de notre histoire.

LE COMITÉ DIRECTEUR DE LA NOUVELLE ACTION ROYALISTE

Spanish republicans propagate the re-use of the guillotine

To commemorate the proclamation of the 2nd republic on 14th April 1931, Spanish republicans have launched a campaign to revive their dead cause. The Izquierda Unida issued posters that state "Nuestros recortes serán con guillotina" (“Our cuts will be done with the guillotine”).

The Izquierda Unida, United Left (iu) consists mainly of the former Communist Party (PCE). Originally the Carlist Party was also a founding member of the iu but they parted ways in 1987. In 2012 the iu holds 11 out of 350 seats in the Spanish Parliament and none of 264 seats in the Spanish senate.

Spanish Monarchists counter the republican campaign by using the Communist motto and denouncing it:

NO to terror!

NO to assassination!

NO to dictatorship!

NO to the republic!

Long live the King!

The French Royalists and the presidential elections

The French are in the middle of a presidential campaign that is not only costlier than ever, but also nastier. Incumbent president Nicolas Sarkozy is trailing behind the Socialist competitor François Hollande.

The French Constitutional Court has approved ten candidates to run for the presidency in elections starting on 22nd April. Former prime minister and foreign minister Dominique de Villepin is not among them, because he did not succeed in convincing 500 dignitaries of the French republic to support him with a "parrainage" (sponsorship). He very bitterly complained that he, who held high offices in the first decade of the third millennium, could not find 500 French dignitaries to give their signature for his candidacy - due to pressure from the ruling conservative party (UMP) and arch-enemy Nicolas Sarkozy with whom he sat at the same cabinet table.

De Villepin pointed out that "fantasist" candidates of all sorts had an easy go to fulfil the parrainage requirement. He aimed not only at the Trotskyite or the Revolutionary Communist candidates, but also at Jacques Cheminade. The 71-year-old - who first sought the presidency in 1981 - is again running as an independent. In 1995 he secured 0.28 percent of the vote. But he is hardly an independent candidate, he is the head of the ominous LaRouche movement in France and spreads their bizarre theses.

This year there is no outspoken Royalist candidate who tries to make it to the Elysée Palace. In 2007 Yves-Marie Adeline, chairman of the Alliance Royale, failed to find 500 signatories. Although he could convince 250 dignitaries to endorse his candidacy, he had to give up his attempt to present a Royalist alternative to the voters. This year his successor Patrick de Villenoisy failed to find 500 godfathers to endorse him.

However, in 2012 there is one candidate, whom the Italian news agency AGI.it connects with Monarchists:

The Constitutional Court has confirmed that there are officially 10 candidates for the French elections, after the official deadline for the presentation of 500 signatures of at least 30 departments of local administrations. ... and monarchist Nicolas Dupont-Aignan.

Strangely enough Monsieur Dupont-Aignan's party is called Debout la république and he could collect 708 signatures.


On the other hand, the royalist organisation (and semi-party)La Nouvelle Action Royaliste (NAR) last week endorsed Nicolas Dupont-Aignan:

Élection présidentielle - COMMUNIQUÉ de la Nouvelle Action Royaliste
Dans le souci primordial de restaurer l'État dans son indépendance et sa dignité, la Nouvelle Action royaliste confirme son rejet de Nicolas Sarkozy et appelle à en délivrer la France. Elle s'oppose, non moins fermement à la propagande xénophobe de Marine Le Pen qui nie la tradition nationale du droit du sol et qui viole, par ses diatribes antimusulmanes, la lettre et l'esprit de la loi sur la laïcité.

Pour le premier tour de l'élection présidentielle, la Nouvelle Action royaliste appelle à voter pour Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, proche de ses positions sur les questions institutionnelles et européennes.

Paris 26 mars 2012

Costly presidential retirees

Yesterday police searched the home of Germany's former president Christian Wulff and seized computers as part of an investigation into his dealings with wealthy business friends . Several officers from the Lower Saxony criminal police searched the premises with the consent of the former president, meaning they did not have to obtain a warrant.


Christian Wulff stepped down as president on 17th February just hours after prosecutors said that they would seek to lift his immunity from prosecution. Despite the dishonourable "retirement" the 52-year-old will receive an annual stipend of 199,000 € annually for the rest of his life, despite the fact that he had stepped down after less than two years in office, 598 days, to be precise. Should he die before his wife, his widow, who is only 38 years old, will step in and receive the full pension for life.


But it is not only this generous pension that infuriates the German public, it is the fact that all formers presidents plus one widow – six all in all – are entitled to an office, staff and a chauffeur driven limousine. Per ex-president this adds up to one million €, or six million € in total for the state pensioners.

Graphic: What Wulff shall receive.

German president resigns after numerous scandals

As the RadicalRoyalist wrote on 21st January and 7th January 2012 German president Christian Wulff has been in trouble since mid-December 2011. This Friday he finally announced his resignation just hours after the prosecutor’s office in Hanover announced that it had asked for the German head of state’s immunity from prosecution to be removed, so that it could open a criminal investigation into allegations that Wulff had improperly granted or accepted favours from businessmen.

The latest scandal involves media allegations that film producer David Groenewold paid for a vacation Wulff spent on the island of Sylt as well as a short break in Munich during Oktoberfest in 2007. A year earlier, Lower Saxony, which Wulff led as state premier at the time, had approved a four-million-euro credit guarantee for one of Groenewold's projects.

In his resignation announcement Wulff was honest and said he enjoyed being president, but that Germany needed someone in the job who large swathes of society trusted. As president Wulff received an annual payment of approximately €213,000 and he can expect to receive the annual salary for the rest of his life. The German taxpayer will also finance an office plus staff and a chauffeur-driven car (certainly not a VW Beetle). Today Germany pays for five "retired" presidents, one since he left office in 1979.

Aren't republics cost effective?

The alternative to any German president is presented here.

Republicanism does not gain ground

There's little comfort for the republic group in the UK, despite Graham Smith's efforts to claim progress for his cause (there as well as in Australia, therefore he is a welcome writer for the Australian republican publications). In The New Statesman Sunder Katwala wrote on 7th February 2012:

The uncomfortable truth for republicans is that public attitudes to the monarchy have barely shifted.

What is most striking is just how little difference all of that made to public attitudes. There is very limited evidence for the "changing public attitude" which Smith says the media is ignoring. Robert Worcester of pollster MORI has more persuasively identified attitudes to the Monarchy as "the most stable measure of public opinion that exists in this country", remaining remarkably consistent at just under one in five across recent decades.

Support for a republic was 18 per cent in 1969. It was also 18 per cent in 1993, 19 per cent in 2002, 18 per cent again in 2007 and 18 per cent again in 2011. During the turbulent period of 1993-2002, MORI found support for remaining a monarchy remained within the narrow range of 69 per cent to 74 per cent in favour. The Jubilee polls are very likely to find very similar levels of support.

British Future state of the nation polling found a broad appetite for the Jubilee celebrations, with 68 per cent believing that the Jubilee will boost the British national mood, while 7 per cent say it will have a negative impact and 23 per cent say it will make no difference. It is an attitude held by 69 per cent in England and 70 per cent in Wales, and by a majority (55 per cent) in Scotland too.

Perhaps, as Graham Smith claims, "any residual affection" will end with the Queen but it sounds like wishful thinking. The end of a reign and the accession of a new Monarch is as likely to be powerful a moment when the Monarchy is as secure as ever.

Republicans make no effort to understand the Monarchist majority
Republicanism remains, of course, an entirely legitimate democratic project, but its advocates must admit that they are a democratic minority, with a sustained democratic majority for a constitutional monarchy, and has made little apparent effort to understand why most people are not persuaded or to respect the views of those who disagree, tending to portray most people as unthinking drones who have been duped by the propaganda. The challenge for republicans is that, while most people understand the arguments for and against, a majority remain unpersuaded that there would be any significant gain, while many would feel a deep sense of loss at the removal of this living link to British history in order to tidy up the constitution and make the country just a little bit more like everywhere else.

Another failed republic - The Maldives president forced to resign

Embattled president Mahomed Nasheed of the Maldives resigned today in the face of growing protests and a police mutiny. He handed power to his deputy Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik, saying continuing in power would result in his having to use force against his people.

Former political prisoner Mahomed Nasheed beat president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom in 2008 and finished a dictatorial regime that had replaced the century old sultanate of the Maldives in 1968. Although governed as an independent Islamic sultanate from 1153 to 1968, the Maldives was a British protectorate from 1887 until 25 July 1965.

After independence from the UK the sultanate continued to operate for another three years under King Muhammad Fareed Didi. On 11th November 1968, the monarchy was replaced by a republic under the presidency of Ibrahim Nasir.

King Muhammad Fareed Didi, who died one year after he was deposed, had been the first Maldivian Monarch to assume the title of "King" with the style of "Your Majesty" rather than Sultan.


More on the Maldive Royal Family on their website.

Portuguese President demands more money despite cuts for everybody else

Ignored by the international media, a scandal has erupted in Portugal caused by the stubborn greed of Anibal Cavaco Silva, the Portuguese republic’s president. He had chosen the first anniversary of his re-election to complain about his impoverished living conditions.

While the debt crisis hit Portugal hard, the country’s governments (a Socialist one until 5th June 2011, after the its election defeat a coalition of Social Democrats [PDS] and Christian Democrats [CDS-PP]) are taking tough austerity measures to minimize the budget deficit. Amongst other measures the Socialist government decided that public servants cannot receive a salary and a pension at the same time. Under the new law Mr. Cavaco Silva renounced his presidential salary of €6523.93. As a former bank manager and university professor he is already entitled to a pension of €10,042.00 a month. On the anniversary of his election he complained that he cannot have a decent life with just €141,000 a year, in his case there is no scrapping of the 13th and 14th monthly holiday and Christmas payments.

A new member of the Occupy Movement: Anibal Cavaco Silva can't live on €10,042 a month.

His public outburst into a TV camera was not well received since the average Portuguese pensioner who lives on €600 a month and does no longer benefit from the once usual 13th and 14th payment. Price hikes on public transport, salary cuts for public servants and other austerity measures do not bother Mr. Cavaco Silva: He insists on a proper pension for himself and his wife, otherwise he would not be able to keep his standard of living.

The outrage is widespread and internet activists not only call for his resignation (Sr. Professor Cavaco, demita-se), but petitions can be signed to force Mr. Cavaco Silva out of office. Petição Pedido de Demissão do Presidente da República . Protesters gathered outside Portugal’s presidential palace to donate money and food to the head of state.

The best comment was already made last year. On 2nd March 2011 Dom Duarte Pio, heir to the Portuguese Crown, commented on the high abstention rate at the presidential elections: 60 percent of the Portuguese no longer care about the presidency. (Jornal de Notícias: O chefe da Casa Real Portuguesa, Duarte Pio de Bragança, defende que a elevada abstenção nas últimas eleições presidenciais significa que a Presidência da República, 'aparentemente, já não merece consideração da parte da maioria dos portugueses'.") But perhaps they do care about how much he is paid.

Beware if you dance with Wulff

The German president Christan Wulff has been in trouble since mid-December 2011. He did not help his cause by sacking his spokesman without naming any reason on 22nd December. Before the sudden disappearance of Olaf Glaeseker, Christian Wulff had called him “my factotum” and even said “we are like Siamese twins” and "he is my alter ego".

How embarrassing this must be for Wulff to be confronted with this news footage, after Olaf Glaeseker’s office was raided last Thursday, 19th January. He is suspected of corruption and bribery. The offices of event manager Manfred Schmidt, who worked closely with the Wulff's office, when he was still Premier of Lower Saxony, were also searched.

Spiegel.de reports:

Both media reports and official investigations have led to suspicions that Glaeseker had improperly funded a series of conferences called "North-South Dialogue," which Schmidt had organized. The series took place between 2007 and 2009 and were sponsored by Wulff and then-Baden Württemberg Premier Günther Oettinger. In December SPIEGEL reported on allegations that Schmidt earned several hundred thousand Euros that had been provided by business sponsors at a single 2009 event.

In return, it is thought that Schmidt made his holiday home available for free to Glaeseker and his wife for three vacations. At the time, Glaeseker was the government spokesman for Lower Saxony and, as a state official, was not allowed to accept such expensive gifts.

State prosecutors in Lower Saxony say that Wulff is not currently a target of any investigation.

HIH Prince Georg Friedrich at Bellevue Palace
Meanwhile at Bellevue Palace, presently occupied by Christian Wulff, Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia had been seen last Monday, 16th January. However, the hope that Wulff was preparing a hand-over of the highest office in Germany to the Hohenzollern Prince, are premature. Wulff isn't ready yet to resign. Instead His Imperial Highness, his wife, HIH Princess Sophie of Prussia and twenty other guests dined at Bellevue Palace. Christian Wulff had invited the heir to the German Crown because after last year's 950 anniversary of the House of Hohenzollern, Germany commemorates this year the 300th anniversary of the birth of King Frederik II of Prussia.

Considering the scandals in which the republican head of Germany is involved, this is certainly a good time to reflect on the advantages of a Monarchy or have read that the Queen had to go to a TV studio to apologise for lies and mistakes? The politicians' president cannot shake of his political past which is plastered with helpful friends and financiers.

German Protesters shout 'Wulff must go!'

Protesters waved shoes in front of the German president's palace Saturday as the opposition issued fresh attacks against him. President Wulff remains under serious pressure over a private loan scandal.


Deutsche Welle published a report on the scandal in the German republic in English.

It took them a while, but finally German Monarchists published a statement on the president's affair here.

A president in training - no end in sight

The scandal involving German president Christian Wulff has been brewing for a month, The Age published just two articles on the topic, both reprints from The New York Times, both they don't go into the details of this failed republican representative: On 3rd January 2012 Wulff scandal a worry for Merkel and on 7th January 2012 Germany finds openness has its limits, a misleading headline, since it is president Wulff, who finds openness harmful.

The German republican model is frequently cited by Australian republicans as one option Australia could adopt should they manage to find a majority to reject the Australian Monarchy. Yet the German model was never properly investigated by the Australian republicans (see: Germany’s president gets elected - and nobody took notice)

Christian Wulff was state premier of Lower Saxony before he managed - with some difficulties - to be elected German president. In 2010 it took him three rounds to gain a majority in the Federal Convention (Bundesversammlung consisting of all members of the Bundestag, and a corresponding number of representatives from the federal states). Though Christian Democrats and Liberals, who have been in a coalition government since October 2009, had a solid 21-majority in the Federal Convention, in the first round only 600 of the government’s 644 electors chose to cast a vote in favour of Christian Wulff, when an overall majority of 623 was required. In the second round his share improved slightly to 615.

In the third round, when the absolute majority was no longer required, Mr. Wulff got his ticket to the Bellevue Palace by managing 625 votes (see: A president nobody knows - and no one wants) His predecessor, Horst Köhler, left office, “because he felt insulted and refused to face the public debate on his statements on Afghanistan. This discloses: The wooden Köhler did always try – and was not up to the job. ...” as The Süddeutsche Zeitung put it.

A private loan
The scandal swirling around Mr. Wulff arose on 12th December 2011 but goes back a couple of years and dates to the time, when he was still state premier of Lower Saxony. Early 2010 he had to admit to the state parliament, that had acted against the existing “ministerial law” that forbids members of the state government from accepting gifts. Mr. Wulff and his wife had accepted a free upgrade from a German airline from economy to business class. And he had accepted free accommodation in holiday resorts that were owned by his friend Egon Geerkens. In this context the Greens asked Premier Wulff, what other business relations he had with Mr. Geerkens.

In a response to that question, he gave this answer: “Zwischen Ministerpräsident Wulff und den in der Anfrage genannten Personen und Gesellschaften hat es in den letzten zehn Jahren keine geschäftlichen Beziehungen gegeben.“ (“Between Premier Wulff and the persons and companies concerned there had been no business relations in the past ten years.“) This was formally correct, because the private low-interest loan of € 500,000 was granted in October 2008 by Mr. Geerkens’ wife and not by the business man himself. However, in the follow up to this story it came out, that the former shop assistant Edith Geerkens never had the means to provide a loan. It was her husband who had transferred the money to her bank account and to disguise the traces even more he insisted that Mr. Wulff should receive the money via an anonymous Federal Bank cheque.

The Geerkens couple may or may not have gained political or business advantages through their relationship with Mr. Wulff and their loan, it was just one of a couple of "friendship" services Mr. Wulff received. The proximity to power seems to drive controversial entrepreneur Carsten Maschmeyer. He's the founder of the scandal ridden financial services firm AWD, his fortune is estimated at about € 650 million.

That gives him plenty of money for a friendly favour or two. He's alleged to have donated € 330,000 to the election campaigns of former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder from the Social Democrats. His generosity wasn't tied, however, to one party or the other. He was apparently also willing to help out Mr. Wulff, who is a member of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

Mr. Maschmeyer reportedly paid € 43,000 in 2008 to publicize the then-state premier's book titled "Better Tell the Truth, a title that is haunting him today." Mr. Maschmeyer claims, however, that Mr. Wulff was not aware of his financial support for the book.

Financial Times: The sheep in the Wulff's fur.

President threatens newspaper - which he denies, but refuses to publish the transcript
On 12th December 2011 Germany’s biggest tabloid newspaper BILD was about to publish the private loan story. Mr. Wulff, who was on a state visit in the Gulf countries and had given a speech on the freedom of press in Kuwait the previous evening, called the editor-in-chief of BILD and threatened legal action if it published a story on a private home loan he received at cheap interest rates.

BILD confirmed media reports that the president had left a message on its chief editor Kai Diekmann's voicemail, in which he threatened the paper with legal action and expressed outrage about its plans to publish details of a private home loan that has prompted widespread criticism. After not reaching Mr. Dieckmann, he left a voice message. Mr. Wulff said BILD was going too far and had "crossed a red line" it would be a “declaration of war”. He complaint about what he called the "unbelievable story" about his € 500,000 loan. Wulff finally reached BILD’s editor-in-chief one day later, expressing regret over the tone and content of his earlier phone call.

Mr. Wulff‘s office said last Monday, 2nd January 2012, that he greatly values media freedom and doesn't comment on private or telephone conversations.

Headline: "Wulff really feels sorry for himself."

To contain the damage, Mr. Wulff granted an interview to two journalists from the public TV stations ARD and ZDF. He apologised for the message left on the voicemail, saying he had merely wanted BILD to delay the report for a day, which the newspaper actually did, but Mr. Wulff had withdrawn written answers shortly before the newspapers deadline on 12th December. Mr Wulff said in the interview was an effort to be open about what had happened.

But Mr. Diekmann said in an open letter published on Thursday that Mr. Wulff had been less than forthcoming. "In order to prevent misunderstandings regarding the content and motive of your phone call, we view it as necessary to publish a transcript of your message," Mr. Diekmann wrote. He asked Mr. Wulff for permission to do so, in keeping with German laws regarding the privacy of personal communications.

In his own open letter, Mr Wulff said no. "The words that were spoken in an exceptionally emotional situation were intended for you and no one else," he wrote. "I apologised to you shortly afterwards. You accepted this apology. That put an end to the dispute between us, and I believe that it should remain so."
Wulff: "I am still in training"

In his TV interview Mr. Wulff (52) claimed he was still in presidential training ("Ich lerne noch"). Having assumed the post of president in July 2010, he still wants to be treated as an apprentice who is learning on the job – and that after a political life that started at the tender age of 16. He has never done anything else but be a politician. The best representative for a politicians’ republic, you’d think.

In a Monarchy the heir to the throne starts his/her training at a very early age and not only, when they assume office.

You could have guessed it

The Queen's decision to award former Australian Prime Minister John Howard one of the highest honours in the Commonwealth was not well received by The Age: It's an honour, Mr Howard. Why?

Mr. Howard had been appointed to the Order of Merit. The Order of Merit, founded by 1902 by King Edward VII, is a special mark of honour conferred by the Sovereign on individuals of exceptional distinction in the arts, learning, sciences and other areas such as public service. Appointments to the Order are the Sovereign's personal gift and ministerial advice is not required. The Order is restricted to 24 members as well as additional foreign recipients. It is in the personal gift of The Queen as Sovereign of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom and twelve other countries.


Appointments can only be made when a member dies. John Howard and British artist David Hockney take places left by the death of artist Lucian Michael Freud, OM, CH (8th December 1922 – 20th July 2011) and Dame Joan Alston Sutherland, OM, AC, DBE (7th November 1926 – 10th October 2010).

While in The Age's internet poll 51 percent agreed that John Howard is deserving to become a member of the Order of Merit, 100 percent of the letters to the editor (all in all seven) published today were against John Howard and the Australian Monarchy. The silliest of all came from Lyn Mitchell: "Now it's definitively time to become a republic." Only she and The Age's editor might draw a connection between honouring a retired politician and introducing a politicians' republic.