Pixar's "Cars" is just like NASCAR

[Zevico]

If there was a law saying "Your employer may legally **** your wife" but it was never done, wouldn't you prefer to have the law changed a) to reflect actual practice and b) to prevent the written law from being taken advantage of before the fact?

Sometimes things that are on paper, are not in fact worth the paper they are written on. This is one of those things. Times have changed. The original Australian government post-Federation had its foreign policy dictated by the English government. That is not the case any longer. That is so as a result of the choice of the Australian people. Any attempt to take advantage of the written law as it stands will not succeed so long as the Australian people conceive of themselves as a separate and distinct nation to the people of the United Kingdom. And that, as you have pointed out, is not the case.

[DaShi]

From discussing Cars the movie, to politics and government.

Only on Apolyton, OT, folks.

Now it's time for the mandatory pointless namecalling you unfunny lincoln-loving troglodyte!

[ricketyclik]

OK Zevico, imagine this hypothetical scenario:

Someone commits a heinous crime, and the public is baying for their blood. The opposition, sensing a political opportunity, calls for the re-introduction of capital punishment, with majority polling showing support. The government of the day holds their ground, and refuses to re-introduce capital punishment. The opposition then turns to a pro-capital punishment King William (he's not as far as I know, but hypothetically) and asks him to sack the government because they're not enacting the will of the people. King William, being a passionate advocate of capital punishment, and having been disgusted by the details of the case, feels he has good cause to do so, and does.

Is such a situation so far-fetched? Who knows what qualities future monarchs may have, and what situations may arise? Yes QEII has adopted an admirable hands off approach, but will the next one? And the next?

Why not make what we both agree is the reality now reflected by law to protect it into the future?

[Cort Haus]

You want an American sport, try the NFL, it's got much broader appeal.

Can't be doing with any kind of egg-chasing I'm afraid. As I said, I'm a fan of the IRL though. Starts tonight.

[MikeH]

How about the facts that there is a Union Jack dominating our flag, an Englander is our head of state, and other countries perceive us to be an English colony?

Technically a German is your head of state.

[MikeH]

Ever travelled in Asia? I'm frequently asked "Why haven't you gained your independence yet?".

@ the brilliant Asian trolls.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You were an English colony. I don't see what's so bad about it. Many of the best countries were English colonies, and I'd love to have the old ensign back up here.

At least the US had the sense to totally disentagle itself from the British.

As said, were British colonies. Some folks don't like the idea of indirectly supporting a hereditary monarchy, you know, because of principle (something which I wonder you are actually familiar with).

[DanS]

To get it out of the way in one fell swoop:

(1) I'm all for putting the monarch in a guillotine;
(2) Burning down Atlanta was fun and good for us; and
(3) NASCAR drivers being burned alive in their vehicles in front of hundreds of thousands of Bud-swillers is just fine by me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Burning down Atlanta was good for Atlanta as well (if by "us" you meant Yankees as opposed to Americans).

[Zevico]

The hypothetical you pose is not very useful to this discussion. It's a nice story though.

No governor general or monarch can take action of his own accord. They cannot disallow bills without the consent (usually written as "advice", but "advice" in this context actually means consent) of the government of the day. Not now, not ever. This is fundamental to democratic government and it has been for a few centuries now. The last time a monarch refused to give the royal assent to a bill was in 1707. You may be aware that a war was fought over the issue of monarchical power in the United Kingdom. Heads rolled, including that of King Charles I, over the matter. At this point I invite all comers to make as many beheading puns as possible.

There is no reason to suppose that the monarch will ever regain their status and power in society, as you have acknowledged. An active monarch is a contradiction in terms in a constitutional monarchy. Any attempt to do so will fail: to reiterate, the Crown acts "on advice"; any attempt to act without "advice" is ineffective.

[Ben Kenobi]

I love this place, England is a significant part of its history, and my ancestors are largely English, but I'm Australian, as are most people who live here, the Queen has no place in making our decisions for us, and our flag ought to reflect that reality once it comes to pass.

What role does the Queen play in the actual decision-making. I don't believe she's ever exercised her constitutional powers in Australia.

[Ben Kenobi]

At least the US had the sense to totally disentagle itself from the British.

You guys had to fight a war over it. Personally, I like a constitutional monarchy, although there are many things I prefer about the American system.

As said, were British colonies. Some folks don't like the idea of indirectly supporting a hereditary monarchy, you know, because of principle (something which I wonder you are actually familiar with).

I would hardly say that republicans are unprincipled, just that they order their principles differently. Personally, I'd rather be ruled from Washington, then London and then Ottawa.

[Zevico]

What's the point of this? The point of having a governor general is that they are not a partisan appointment, but represent the queen.

No.

Firstly, as a matter of historical practice, since about the time when Parliament gained supremacy in England, i.e. about the 1600-1700's, monarchs have not appointed governors-general. They have rubber stamped the appointments chosen by the UK government of the day. This is referred to as "acting on the advice of the government." So as a matter of history, the Australian government (and the Canadian government, to name one) took over this role for themselves in about 1926. So now Her Majesty acts "on the advice" of the Australian as opposed to the UK government in appointing her governors-general.

Secondly, permitting the Monarch to make appointments subjects the process to the possibility of abuse that cannot be accounted for--making appointments for 'buddies', in other words'--absent dethroning the Monarch. As history shows, that system is not very efficient.

Thirdly, Governor-Generals have so far not been appointed on a partisan basis by any government. Generally they are respected but relatively unknown public figures. Judges are popular, as are retired Generals. In the Whitlam era, a Labour government was kicked out by a Labor-appointee Governor-General. They are regarded as the safekeepers of power that is for the most part symbolic, but which, as the Whitlam saga shows, can sometimes become very real. It is an emergency power that is undefined in scope.

However, I do think that it may be necessary to revise the process for the appointment of a Governor-General (or President, if you please), to prevent abuse in future.

[Ben Kenobi]

It has been abused out here, by the Liberal Party to appoint party hacks.

[Elok]

You guys had to fight a war over it. Personally, I like a constitutional monarchy, although there are many things I prefer about the American system.

Nothing like an anachronistic, inbred parasite over-class to add a bit of legitimacy to one's universal suffrage.