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

21–30 of 113 posts

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#21

Post by sofixa »

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…

> In Italy and Greece Governments have been effectively overthrown by the EU (or ECB/IMF) in fairly open ways with technocrats put in charge.

How, exactly? I don't recall the EU appointing technocratic governments there, i recall elections and the Greek and Italian people making a choice. Choice in specific circumstances that probably influenced them, but same as any election during a crisis.

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#22

Post by marcus_holmes »

lb1lf wrote: post #14
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 import…

As a dual-national UK/Australian, I can say it's a little more complex for us.

In the UK, the monarchy fits pretty well with the other European constitutional monarchies, and there are reasons to support it as you say. I still think hard questions need to be asked about the exact nature of the monarchy, but it's clearly an English/Scottish/Welsh institution that belongs here.

In Australia, it's a remnant of colonialism, a foreign invader that destroyed one of the oldest, if not the oldest, civilisations on the planet. If we're ever going to get over this, then we need to remove these remnants. Having a British constitutional monarchy in modern Australia is a ridiculous anachronism. The "advantages" could clearly be replicated without the historical baggage. We need to be a republic.

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#23

Post by znpy »

sofixa wrote: post #21
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…

> In Italy and Greece Governments have been effectively overthrown by the EU (or ECB/IMF) in fairly open ways with technocrats put in charge. How, exactly? I don't recall the EU appointing technocratic governments there, i recall elections and the Greek and Italian people making a choice. Choice in specific circumstances that probably influenced them, but same as any election during a crisis.

Can you please help me remember exactly when the Italians voted in elections for Mario Monti as prime minister? I just can't recall that!

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#24

Post by rswail »

doctor_eval wrote: post #4
pretendgeneer wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Albanese included a "Assistant Minister for the Republic" in his government so possibly soon.

I believe he also said after the next election. Wants to build political capital first, apparently.

It will also require a referendum, which in Australia requires not only a majority of the population, but also a majority of the states (there are 6 states and 2 territories).

Constitutional change in Australia is rare and difficult and requires bipartisan support to get the change across.

The current government is already proposing a referendum on the "voice" of First Nations, which would make changes to the Constitution to formally recognize the presence of Aboriginal people prior to Australia's colonization, as well as requiring "consultation" when laws are passed that specifically address First Nation concerns.

This will take all of the bandwidth Australia has for "change" in the first term (3 years for Federal Governments), so trying to get more than one referendum through would be impossible.

We had a referendum on becoming a republic back in the late 90s, but our government at the time (led by John Howard) basically white-anted it, along with the pro-republic forces not having a settled agreement on what the republic would look like.

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#25

Post by mst »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #22
lb1lf wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

-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 import…

As a dual-national UK/Australian, I can say it's a little more complex for us. In the UK, the monarchy fits pretty well with the other European constitutional monarchies, and there are reasons to support it as you say. I still think hard questions need to be asked about the exact nature of the monarchy, but it's clearly an English/Scottish/Welsh institution that belongs here. In Australia, it's a remnant of coloniali…

I think having a nominal monarch for people to form parasocial relationships with rather than getting overly attached to any given politician has its advantages.

But (note, UK person here, add salt accordingly) it seems like you could retain that part while also stripping any actual power - i.e. 'power-wise practically a republic, emphasis on the -nominal- in my first sentence.'

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#26

Post by mst »

goodcanadian wrote: post #18
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.…

It is notable that the piece's primary author (as noted at the end) wrote a two volume biography of Whitlam.

I'm not going to pretend to be informed enough about the overall events and motivations to have an opinion, but it does seem likely that the piece's overall tone is likely to be affected by that fact.

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#27

Post by rswail »

goodcanadian wrote: post #18
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.…

The GG is the "Queen's Representative" in Australia and is appointed by her on the advice of her Prime Minister. She is "Queen of Australia" in this role, not Queen of the UK.

As such, her advice to Kerr should have been "Take the advice from the PM and the legal advice he has asked the Solicitor General and Attorney General to provide to you".

That should have been it. Anything else is improper and against the rules of a constitutional monarch.

If the Queen had tried to do the same thing in the UK, Parliament would immediately remove the Crown from power.

In a similar situation in the UK, where the House of Lords attempted to block supply passed by the Commons, the Lords have no power to amend the bill. If they refuse to pass it, the Commons can reintroduce the bill unchanged.

The Crown would have no power to intervene unless there was a "loss of confidence" in the Commons, at which point the PM would have no alternative to advising the Crown to call an election.

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#28

Post by urthor »

tragomaskhalos wrote: post #5

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

Supply == The Australian Government's budget.

Unlike the United States,

By law, and by basic common sense, there MUST be a bill passed that contains the budget for the coming year. Otherwise no money is made available to public servants.

Any government must be able to secure support for this bill once a year.

Otherwise the entire civil service will not be paid.

What the Queen established was the precedent that, instead of having a government shutdown over supply like the United States, you instead just have an election right away.

Frankly, compared to the US approach, it's much more practical.

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#29

Post by goodcanadian »

rswail wrote: post #27
goodcanadian wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

The GG is the "Queen's Representative" in Australia and is appointed by her on the advice of her Prime Minister. She is "Queen of Australia" in this role, not Queen of the UK. As such, her advice to Kerr should have been "Take the advice from the PM and the legal advice he has asked the Solicitor General and Attorney General to provide to you". That should have been it. Anything else is improper and against the rules…

I actually think that is an advantage in Australia and Canada. The Governor General is not the monarch, but is (effectively) appointed by a democratically elected official. That gives them more freedom to actually wield that power (albeit extremely rarely). I, personally, think it is very useful to have that neutral referee with real power. As you say, the King is much more constrained in the UK. Although, he theoretically has the same power, it is much more problematic if he uses it.

EDIT: To be clear, I am not well enough versed in the history to make a judgment on whether Kerr was right or wrong, and I understand that it will always be controversial, but I do think it is a feature and not a bug for the GG to have that power.

Re: The Queen’s Coup

#30

Post by ggm »

I am an avowed republican, I waited until I didn't have to swear alleigence to the crown to take my citizenship in Oz.

But I am aware of a 51/49 class split between Liberal and Labor over Gough, and so the belief this "they tried to overthrow Gough" thing translates to "OMG the republicans will win" is ludicrous.

Enough people think Gough was bonkers, That even Razor-gang Malcom Frazer was better.

I am glued on Gough/Labor. I don't agree with the people who preferred Frazer (who in later life became quite left) -I just want to note that this isn't a huge "this story breaks monarchism" because enough people actually wanted what the Queen and John Kerr did, to make it more nuanced.

Post reply on HN