|
The Leader of HM Australian Opposition, Mr. Kevin Rudd, has now decided that a referendum on a republic would not occur in the first term of a Labor government . This was announced in a report, “Rudd to turn back boat people” based on an interview with The Australian published on 23 November, 2007. In this report, Paul Kelly and Dennis Shanahan said Mr. Rudd will turn the boats back and deter asylum-seekers, using the threat of detention and the nation's close ties with Indonesia. He announced that a referendum on Aboriginal reconciliation, a separate Aboriginal treaty and a republican referendum would not occur in the first term of a Rudd Labor government, if at all. We note with fascination the rider, “if at all.”We reported in this column on 23 September 2007 a shock London announcement made on behalf of Mr Rudd that another referendum to turn Australian into a republic is to be held within three years, probably in 2010. We suspect that from the line taken in this interview on the eve of the election, the focus groups and polls are telling Mr. Rudd not to touch republicanism with a bargepole. Is this a recognition that republicanism is “comatose” and “on life support,” as the republican media have described it, or is it being sent off, as ultra republican Maximilien François Marie Odenthalius Isidore de Robespierre was, and by his fellow republicans - in a tumbril to a speedy end?
1. David Byers
Written by
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, on 01-12-2007 13:12
Maybe Mr Rudd is starting to understand just how many traditional Labor voters support the Crown. Remember in the 1999 referendum only 25 Labor sets voted YES whilst 42 Labor sets voted NO, and that was after the massive pro-republic propaganda! |
2. Kevin Rudd retreats on republic
Written by
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, on 30-11-2007 15:50
Given that he has just won by a landslide, wouldn't now be the best time for Kevin Rudd to call for a republic? It would all tie in with "change" and "a fresh start" and he would have a majority of the electorate behind him.
However, the problem of finding the right model remains. If he can't find one, then he'll experience the same problems as his predecessors in 1999. |
3. Written by
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, on 30-11-2007 15:49
You are probably so utterly wrong. You show all the signs of hubris. Be warned!
The new Rudd Government plans to be there for the long haul, certainly two terms if not three or more. Many people within his party believe that ultimately they will be a majority government in perpetuity with an opposition made up of various independents and minor parties. They have a large first term agenda, which they will have to push through while they still have all the state governments, because it is very likely that Australians will reject any party wall-to-wall and some state Labor Govts have been there a long time. Certainly, the republic is not a top priority, and obviously pointless to raise anything that contentious in an election. Furthermore, there is the expectation that a republic will transpire of its own accord at the time of succession, which is not automatic, but requires ratification from the Commonwealth and State Parliaments, which could uniformly reject such a vote, leaving us without a king. Certainly, it is obvious that any referendum now would end up being a vote of confidence and thanks to Her Majesty, and be roundly beaten. There is also the expectation that the United Kingdom will eventually split up with Scotland and Wales having their own local parliaments as well as sending their own members to the European Parliament.
The timing of Australia's election right on CHOGM indicates Australia's attitude to the Commonwealth. One might have thought that Mr Howard, had he really believed in the value of the Commonwealth and the Crown, as you seem to think he does, he might have had the election a week earlier, instead of it being longer than usual, and then triumphantly attended CHOGM re-elected. Howard was never a real Monarchist, just a Lawyer who supported the status quo for the time being. |
4. Kevin Rudd retreats on republic
Written by
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, on 30-11-2007 15:50
Look what the Daily Telegraph of London is carrying today in its news pages, which is what I mooted yesterday:
Calls for Australia's Rudd to hold referendum
By Nick Squires in Sydney
Last Updated: 1:59am GMT 26/11/2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/26/wref126.xml
"Within hours of sweeping to victory in Saturday's federal election, Mr Rudd faced calls from the Australian Republican Movement to make the issue a priority." |
5. Get Involved
Written by
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, on 30-11-2007 15:51
Please note: the Daily Telegraph (London) is running this leader.
Kevin Rudd and a republic
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 26/11/2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/26/dl2602.xml
It is instructive that the wily Mr Rudd did not make the republic, which he favours, an issue in the recent campaign; but, as we report today, he is now under pressure from his own supporters to put it back at the top of the political agenda, and canvass the people on a blueprint with a better chance of success as soon as may be.
Her Majesty the Queen has made it clear that this is a matter Australians must decide for themselves. But if they are called upon to do so again in the near future, we hope they will remember not just the unconditional affection of their sovereign, but also how highly Britain values the existing relationship.
It is not for us to interfere; but we can hope that Mr Rudd's ear remains finely tuned, and he realises now is not the time to try to force a republic. |
6. David Byers
Written by
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, on 01-12-2007 13:07
Maybe Mr Rudd is starting to realise just how many Labor voters support the Crown. |
7. Written by Eric Brown, on 01-12-2007 13:11
As I am writing from the UK, Mr Pollack, I bow to your superior knowledge of the Australian political scene and also heed your use of the word \"hubris\".
I am a staunch monarchist who would deeply regret Australia becoming a republic as it would sever one very strong link between my Australian wife\'s country and mine.
From what I have heard over here, Labor may eventually have a harder time holding onto all their State/Territorial governments now that they hold office federally.
However, the Liberal/National parties have been weak for a long time at State level, both in terms of party apparatus and talent. None of the opposition State leaders are impressive and until one comes along, possibly in WA or Queensland, there is unlikely to be any change. In which case, why should Mr Rudd rush, despite present calls from the ARM, to call for a republic soon? In any event, it would be more appropriate to do so at the time of succession, as you so neatly put it.
I disagree with your statement: \"There is also the expectation that the United Kingdom will eventually split up with Scotland and Wales having their own local parliaments as well as sending their own members to the European Parliament.\"
Scotland, like Northern Ireland, already has its own parliament, while Wales has an assembly. Those institutions were put in place by the Blair government as part of the devolution settlement and after low referendum turnouts of the Welsh and Scottish voters in favour, which hardly demonstrated the overwhelming support of the people of Scotland and Wales.
Although the Holyrood parliament is currently run by an SNP minority government with the support of a number of minority parties, this is not proof that the Scottish people want independence.
Even if, by 2017, 310 years after the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland, the people voted for independence, Elizabeth the First (not Second) would remain head of state. As it says on the SNP website: \"The Queen and her successors will remain Head of State, in the way that she is presently Head of State in fifteen other independent Commonwealth countries. If, in the future, the people of Scotland wished to change these arrangements, they would be free to do so by amending the constitution through a referendum.\" As for MEPs, Scotland and Wales already send their own MEPs to the European Parliament. They are British MEPs, though.
The main threat facing the Queen, however, is not whether Scotland and/or Wales should seek their independence and dissolve the Union, but the EU Reform, or Amending, Treaty, i.e. the old rejected EU Constitution in almost all but name.
This is to be ratified by EU Heads of State in Lisbon next month. The respective parliaments of the Member States will all pass it when it goes before them in 2008 and only the Irish people can vote on it in a referendum and will probably not oppose it.
The point is: once this Reform Treaty is approved, decision making will move from member states to the EU Commission and the first steps to the creation of a super-state will have been taken. Individual member states will surrender their sovereignty and will eventually be divided up. In the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will retain their territorial integrity as EU regions and English will become balkanised into nine EU regions.
What, then, will be the significance of Her Majesty the Queen when the superstate of Europe has its own president?
Whether Australia retains the monarchy or not, it and other English-speaking Commonwealth countries will be more like the UK as was than the UK that will be. Now that is a sad irony. |
Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze - www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved |
Comments (7)
