Comments on: PHOENIX REPUBLIC http://wmmbb.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/phoenix-republic/ A micro world of emergent clarity with much confusion and furious paddling beneath the surface. Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:28:39 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: wmmbb http://wmmbb.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/phoenix-republic/#comment-12076 wmmbb Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:31:45 +0000 http://wmmbb.wordpress.com/?p=2238#comment-12076 Thanks Harold. I can understand where you are coming from, but I don't think it was intended. I agree, the people at the Summit in the governance section are not representative, and I do not know the criteria used to select them, except that they were considered to be expert in the area, which perhaps was largely the case. The overwhelming support for the republic at the Summit surprised me. I do not necessarily have the best explanation. Yes, I suppose it is an Australian institution set up by the Parliament, very much like the confirmation of Henry VIII marriage to Queen Anne Boleyn in 1635 or the Act of Settlement in 1701, yet it a British person who becomes in effect the head of state, not an Australian citizen. Given past experience, there is likely to be two questions. Firstly to indicate support for the idea of an Australian Republic and head of state, and what form that should take, presumably consistent with the practice of parliamentary democracy. Should the question arise: Are you in favor of an elected (and by whom?) or an appointed head of state? Thanks Harold.

I can understand where you are coming from, but I don’t think it was intended. I agree, the people at the Summit in the governance section are not representative, and I do not know the criteria used to select them, except that they were considered to be expert in the area, which perhaps was largely the case. The overwhelming support for the republic at the Summit surprised me. I do not necessarily have the best explanation.

Yes, I suppose it is an Australian institution set up by the Parliament, very much like the confirmation of Henry VIII marriage to Queen Anne Boleyn in 1635 or the Act of Settlement in 1701, yet it a British person who becomes in effect the head of state, not an Australian citizen.

Given past experience, there is likely to be two questions. Firstly to indicate support for the idea of an Australian Republic and head of state, and what form that should take, presumably consistent with the practice of parliamentary democracy.

Should the question arise: Are you in favor of an elected (and by whom?) or an appointed head of state?

]]> By: Harold http://wmmbb.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/phoenix-republic/#comment-12072 Harold Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:57:39 +0000 http://wmmbb.wordpress.com/?p=2238#comment-12072 How can you have a dialogue on Australia's form of state if you appoint only republican summiteers? Of course you get a 100 percent vote in favour of "a" republic. Did you notice that they didn't indicate what kind of republic should replace our Australian Monarchy. It is not a British Monarchy. We share our Monarch with 16 states, but it is an Australian institution. How can you have a dialogue on Australia’s form of state if you appoint only republican summiteers? Of course you get a 100 percent vote in favour of “a” republic. Did you notice that they didn’t indicate what kind of republic should replace our Australian Monarchy. It is not a British Monarchy. We share our Monarch with 16 states, but it is an Australian institution.

]]>