Australia- the headline reads – Renews Republic Calls.
Interesting. The nation may have spoken a few months ago in electing a broadly pro-republican party, but they didn’t speak on this particular issue. In fact the nation did speak on that nine years ago, when they rejected a republic and voted for the monarchy. In fact it appeared that the call for a republic was not “Australia’s” at all, but of a minority of its people. On what basis then can Australia “renew” a call that it never made?
At least the meeting called by the new Prime Minister “brought together Australia’s best and brightest brains with the aim of plotting the country’s future trajectory.”
All very NuLabour I am sure (just like the golden years in the UK), but aren’t there any clever people who distance themselves from Rudd and his republican agenda? Evidently not.
Funnily enough, Tim Blair (very bright and rather good) manages a whole extended post round-up of the conference without mentioning the R word at all.
“The meeting, which started on Saturday in the capital Canberra, has brought together Australia’s best and brightest brains”
“Prime Minister Kevin Rudd invited 1,000 people, including actors Cate Blanchett and Hugh Jackman”
I know Aussies aren’t known for their intellectual prowess but surely there’s a contradiction in those two statements…
Former PM and staunch monarchist John Howard very cleverly finessed the referendum by wording the proposal in such a way that even republicans couldn’t bring themselves to vote YES.
The recent election of a Labor government simply gave fresh hope to a republican movement that had never accepted that defeat.
Why does anyone care up here in the Uk if oz becomes a republic or not? Why is this an issue? It was founded as an open prison for god’s sake – let it go.
It was founded as an open prison for god’s sake – let it go.
Graeme aka Minekiller | 22.04.08 – 6:53 am
ditto United States of America. That doesn’t stop the BBC reporting Obama/Clinton.
The BBC has an obligation for neutrality and accuracy on every continent.
Hugh Jackman’s parents are English — so I’m giving him a pass.
Though it is funny that a country would include working actors as its “brightest and best brains…”
Deegee, you need to brush up on your history, I fear. The USA was not a ‘prison’, open or otherwise: it was settled by all kinds of groups, e.g. religious sects, plantation owners etc. I don’t think most of them were sent there under court orders.
Nearly Oxfordian, You know nought of what you speak.
Since the Transportation Act of 1718, Britain had been sending convicts to its American colonies. However, when the War of Independence, also known as the American Revolutionary War, began in 1775, convict transportation to America had to end.
According to Elkirk, Over 30,000 felons boarded ship in England for transportation to America from the beginning of the convict trade in 1718 to its end in 1775. Approximately 8,600 were transported from London and nearby counties, according to records kept by the English Treasury. Inasmuch as nearly as many came from other areas in England and Wales, the total number of English and Welsh transports may have ranged close to 35,000. Adding some 16,000 from Ireland and possibly 800 from Scotland, we find that Great Britain may have transported more than 50,000 people during the period. Estimates that have put the figure closer to 30,000 are too conservative. Transported convicts composed perhaps a quarter of British immigrants to colonial America during the eighteenth century.
Roger Ekirch (1985), Bound for America: A Profile of British Convicts Transported to the Colonies, 1718-1775, The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Apr., 1985), pp. 184-200
To keep things in perspective, between 1788 to 1868, the total number of transported convicts to Australia stood at around 162,000 men and women.
Deege, you tosspot, read what you yourself wrote:
“Transported convicts composed perhaps a quarter of British immigrants to colonial America during the eighteenth century”.
Now if you take away a quarter from one, you get three quarters who were NOT transported convicts: are you able to follow me so far? Can you comprehend that three quarters is more than half, i.e. a majority?
Now read what I said, this time paying attention:
“I don’t think most of them were sent there under court orders” – three quarters being ‘most’ as most people understand the term.
Nearly Oxfordian:
Stop moving the goalposts.
You said,”The USA was not a ‘prison’, open or otherwise”. A British colony where one quarter of the British population were prisoners can not be considered otherwise. BTW the prisoners were the second largest group of immigrants. The largest group were African slaves!
You don’t think ‘most’ of them were sent there under court orders. So what? Most of the Australian population were not prisoners by that definition, either. They were outnumbered by military, administration, their families and free settlers. That didn’t make Australia or America less of an open prison.
If you insult me one more time this will be the last you hear from me in this conversation. B-BBC should not tolerate language like ‘Tosspot’.
Nor should it tolerate language such as ‘You know nought of what you speak’, when I demonstrated that it’s you who has no clue. I qualified my remarks very specifically by saying ‘most’. It’s not my fault that you can’t comprehend simple English.
deeegee
Is it true that what the Australians rejected in their referendum was a proposal that the Queen should be replaced as head of state by a President elected by the Canberra parliament, rather than by the electorate as a whole?
“Tosspot” is a great ye olde english word that should be used on a daily basis if referring to the BBC.
Anonymous | 22.04.08 – 6:03 pm
I wasn’t in Oz at the time but that is essentially what I understand. It was more complicated and prone to manipulation than simply a parliamentary vote.
The Australian people would nominate candidates for President. A committee representing a wide cross-section of the community would reduce the people’s nominations to a short list to go to the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister would then consult with the Leader of the Opposition and other parties on the most worthy candidate. A joint sitting of the House of Representatives and the Senate would then vote to approve the candidate.
Andrew Bolt has a series of excellent commentaries on the whole 2020 debacle and the “republican” debate at
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_republican_con/
Makes for good reading.
I voted against the republic at the referendum. Can’t see why we should replace something that works with a great unknown.