Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Queen’s Coup

declassifiedaus.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 113 posts

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#11

Post by doingtheiroming »

The assumption that things like this necessarily increase support for republicanism is probably misplaced. In Italy and Greece Governments have been effectively overthrown by the EU (or ECB/IMF) in fairly open ways with technocrats put in charge. In both countries support for the EU is running at very high levels despite that. Higher levels in fact that when it happened.

The U.K. monarchy clearly lacks the wherewithal to influence Australian politics today that it possibly had back then and has nothing like the influence (through the Euro) of the ECB on the democratic Governments of Eurozone countries.

The lesson might actually be (ironically if so) that the monarchy would be more resilient to republican opinion if it wielded more power. It is the perceived pointlessness of it that will lead to its decline, not any strength.

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#12

Post by skissane »

tragomaskhalos wrote: post #5

Crucial to this piece is "blocking of supply"; unfortunately there is no explanation of what this actually means.

It is analogous to a “government shutdown” in the US - the Senate refuses to pass appropriation bills, which will cause the government to run out of money to operate.

While in the US either the House or Senate can do that, in Australia effectively only the Senate can - each “Administration” (we say “government”) gets its power from a majority vote of the House, so if the House votes against the budget, the government must resign. If the Senate does the same, it isn’t forced to.

Another difference relates to the consequences - the monarch’s representative (the Governor-General) can use that as grounds to sack the Prime Minister, appoint a new one, and force a new election, as controversially happened in this case. In the US system there is no constitutional way to have an early election, plus sacking the President is a lot harder (needs an impeachment trial)

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#13

Post by defrost »

tragomaskhalos wrote: post #5

Crucial to this piece is "blocking of supply"; unfortunately there is no explanation of what this actually means.

Hardly .. the letters make clear that Kerr was serious about dismissing Whitlam well before supply was blocked:

> After decades of speculation, the letters show once and for all that the Queen and Prince Charles, now Australia’s King, knew as early as September 1975 that Kerr was considering dismissing the government, two months before he did so. This timing was damning.

> They knew a dismissal was being considered by Kerr in the absence of any crisis in government, since the Opposition had not yet made its decision to withhold supply in the Senate.

Thank goodness Australia had serious cutting edge journalists covering The Dismissal [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4jfR2u_9Kk

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#14

Post by lb1lf »

doingtheiroming wrote: post #11

The assumption that things like this necessarily increase support for republicanism is probably misplaced. In Italy and Greece Governments have been effectively overthrown by the EU (or ECB/IMF) in fairly open ways with technocrats put in charge. In both countries support for the EU is running at very high levels despite that. Higher levels in fact that when it happened. The U.K. monarchy clearly lacks the wherewitha…

-Obviously, public opinion differs in different monarchies, but living in one constitutional monarchy - Norway - I feel that precisely as the monarchy is gutted of real power, its resilience is strengthened.

One could quip that we need someone to inaugurate new infrastructure works, provide soothing, apolitical speeches in time of need and serve as an unelected symbol of our country - the 'unelected' bit being important, as otherwise we'd just end up with some has-been politician put out to pasture, someone probably the majority of the population had never voted for and don't see as 'their' head of state.

Now, on principle, the monarchy is laughable, anachronistic and undemocratic - but donning my pragmatist glasses, I see it as probably the best way to ensure we have a (symbolic) head of state for performing just those duties where you need someone not overtly political. As long as the royals feel like doing the job, I say let them.

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#16

Post by emmelaich »

tragomaskhalos wrote: post #5

Crucial to this piece is "blocking of supply"; unfortunately there is no explanation of what this actually means.

"Supply" means the periodic bill to pay the governments debts. i.e. public servant salaries and defence force etc.

If you cannot pay those then the government is effectively not a government.

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#17

Post by CrInhabitant »

jon_adler wrote: post #10
tragomaskhalos wrote: post #5

Crucial to this piece is "blocking of supply"; unfortunately there is no explanation of what this actually means.

In Australia, legislation needs to pass through both lower and upper houses. In this situation, the opposition party was able to block crucial legislation from passing through both houses and into law. If legislation is repeatedly blocked, it may lead to a double dissolution [1] of both houses where all parliamentarians require reelection. [1] https://www.moadoph.gov.au/blog/double-dissolution-what-is-i...

Legislation only applies to citizens. Liz was in a different club the supplies of which has veto over the plebs

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#18

Post by goodcanadian »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #8

The narrative seems to conflate the Palace and the Queen as being one and the same. The Wikipedia article on this is less... certain, shall we say. [0] We always knew that there was correspondence between the Governor General and the Palace, because after all, the GG is the representative of the current monarch, when a GG is going to wade in and cause a constitutional crisis, I'd expect there to be such correspondenc…

But calling it the "Queen's Coup" is overegging the pudding.

It was very much John Kerr's Coup.

Yes, I find the detailed history fascinating, but I am a bit unconvinced by the spin put on it. Clearly, the claim that the palace had no idea it was coming is false, but I don't read the supposedly damning quotes from the letters as the Queen (or anyone else in the palace) giving partisan advise about what action to take. I read it as advising him of what powers he held and that he was free to use them should he decide it was necessary.

Frankly, I feel like this is exactly the sort of role that a Governor General should take: acting as a neutral referee when the children stop playing nicely. The Governor General's powers are quite limited, but they are very real. The fact that the Prime Minister can replace the Governor General more or less at will acts as a strong democratic check on this power. (This is more problematic in the UK where the King cannot be replaced.) Personally, I think the "theoretical monarchy" and the role of the Governor General is a very nice feature in Canada and Australia (and presumably other commonwealth realms).

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#19

Post by m000 »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #8

The narrative seems to conflate the Palace and the Queen as being one and the same. The Wikipedia article on this is less... certain, shall we say. [0] We always knew that there was correspondence between the Governor General and the Palace, because after all, the GG is the representative of the current monarch, when a GG is going to wade in and cause a constitutional crisis, I'd expect there to be such correspondenc…

> The narrative seems to conflate the Palace and the Queen as being one and the same.

"The Palace" sounds just like an insulation layer to guarantee Queen's infallibleness: If something is good, then the Queen did it. If anything turns out hairy, it's "the Palace".

Similar to multiple management layers in companies. Unless it's a major blunder, the CEO won't take any blame. There are multiple management layers that "absorb" the hit.

Post reply on HN