Queen Elizabeth must die or abdicate for Australian republic »

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 27

• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  STONERS

  Jan. 27, 2008, 10:48 p.m.

  "Turnbull said Queen Elizabeth's departure from the throne would be a "watershed event that would galvanize the population" into debating what type of head-of-state they wanted."

  "I said at the time of the 1999 referendum that if we voted 'no' it would mean 'no' for a very long time," Turnbull told local media on Monday."

  "My own judgment is that the next time when you would have your best prospects (of a republic) is at the end of the Queen's reign -- when she dies or when she abdicates," said Turnbull, former head of the Australian Republican Movement."
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  uncle-dave

  Jan. 28, 2008, 12:20 a.m.

  I guess the Aussies are still pizzed about the Battle of Gallipoli, and rightly so. That battle gave them their national identity and also gave them some misgivings about the might of the British Empire. This should be interesting to watch.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  ETproductions

  Jan. 28, 2008, 12:50 a.m.

  Queen Elizabeth doesn't appear to be in any hurry to oblige the Republic minded Aussies. My guess is when Charles finally accedes to the throne, the Republic will pass in a landslide.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  blinkers

  Jan. 28, 2008, 2:15 a.m.

  The republican groundswell in Australia has been growing for years, most Aussies feel pretty remote from the archaic monarchy in faraway London -- and understandably so. It remains to be seen whether any referendum will be held while Queen Elizabeth II reigns, she could be around for another 20 years, and apparently abdication is not an option. (I should imagine the thought of her son as head of state of Australia would be a Godsend (no pun intended) for the republican cause!)
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  carl-galloway

  Jan. 28, 2008, 4:07 a.m.

  Having lived in Australia for many years my opinion is that most aussies like to talk about this over a beer, and some of them probably get quite vocal about it, but when all comes to push or shove they just don't care enough to make any changes to status quo, why fix something that doesn't need fixing yet, and anyway, at least the queen doesn't stick her head where it isn't wanted unlike too many of our politicians.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Jaydee40

  Jan. 28, 2008, 10:03 a.m.

  The story is misleading and doesn't give the truth about how the country is governed. The Queen is only a figure head, about the same as the Bald Eagle for the US but her name and signature are used to validate decisions the politicians make just as here in Canada, what possible advantage could there be to becoming a republic?
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Endoscopy

  Jan. 28, 2008, 12:37 p.m.

  Much ado about nothing. They have a figurehead that can do something only when the government is dissolved and elections are underway. Even then the Governor General appointed by the Queen keeps a low profile.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  boom499

  Jan. 28, 2008, 2:36 p.m.

  Makes no sense to me either. The queen is only a figure head. She has no powers so what difference does her being queen make.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Jaydee40

  Jan. 28, 2008, 3:55 p.m.

  Canada and Australia are already independent, they are governed by what is called a parliamentary monarch. That means the elected parliament rules for the monarch, the monarch has no say in the day to day running of the government or any facet of governing the country.

The first 26 comments are shown. Show all 27 comments »