Re: Kevin Rudd: Australia will become a republic (Telegraph article)

On Apr 13, 4:48 am, David <ds...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 12, 8:21 pm, Don Aitken <don-ait...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:57:29 -0700 (PDT), Donald4564

<dbi...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 8, 3:21 am, "Dag T. Hoelseth" <dh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
*Kevin Rudd: Australia will become a republic*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/07/woz20...

(The Daily Telegraph 7 April 2008)

A republican writing an article in Melbourne's "The Age" quoted a
figure of 60% of Australians being in favour of a republic. Today on
the Seven Network's morning show, they quoted a figure of 60% of
Australians being in favour of retaining the monarchy at least during
the reign of the current sovereign. I wonder who collates these
figures? To my mind the only reliable figure was that from the 1999
referendum where the overwhelming percentage was for the "No" vote.

A constitutional amendment has to put forward a *specific* proposal
and find a majority for that proposal. To say that a majority are in
favor of a republic in the abstract is meaningless, even if true -
there are lots of different kinds of republic. It reminds me of France
in the 1870s (although in that case the decision was made by the
legislature). There was a majority in favor of a monarchy, but no
agreement as to who should be the monarch. In the end they had to
settle for the status quo, which was a republic. The onus is on those
who want a change.

As I understand it, there was (eventually) a consensus in favor of the
Count of Chambord, but the chosen candidate proved recalcitrant; he
basically wanted a return to the kingdom of Charles X, as symbolized
by the white banner of the Bourbons.  Even the monarchists didn't want
to surrender the basic gains of the revolutions.  France had grown for
forty years under the tricolor (in one form or other), and seemed
pretty happy with it.  Allowing "Henry V" back on the throne, on his
own conditions, looked like a recipe for yet another revolution in a
few years time.  135 years later, this still looks like a sound
political calculation.- Hide quoted text -

For my part, 135 years on, I cannot quite see what was gained. If it
was revolution that they wanted to avert, they had two more of those
under the tricolor anyway.
.

Relevant Pages