Charles said to be adopting ‘anti-confrontational approach’ to republican campaigners before visit
Charles said to be adopting ‘anti-confrontational approach’ to republican campaigners before visit
King Charles has said he will not stand in the way if Australia wishes to replace him as the country's head of state, it has been reported.
Ahead of his visit later this month, the king is said to be adopting an "anti-confrontational approach" to Australian republican campaigners, the Daily Mail reported.
Scenario A: King Charles tries to oppose this. His opposition is overridden by, you know, democracy. Now he looks like even more of a schmuck for standing in the way of something that was going to happen anyway.
Scenario B: He doesn't oppose it. Australia votes to become a republic, and seems like a cool guy for not standing in the way of the inevitable.
Seems like a pretty straightforward choice between options.
Fuck, if we tried it some asshole in Alberta would probably sneak in language that vaccinations are illegal and masks cause cancer. Let's not open that can of worms when we've got batshit insane conservatives about to seize power.
Abolishing the monarchy would involve rewriting the constitution - if that was happening every province would want to slip in their own terms - Quebec would want specific French language rights and autonomy and if Quebec got their way Alberta would want something similar. We successfully altered the constitution back in 1982 - it took 2 years and the country almost blew up over it.
Basically it would be a total shit show. Considering the impact the monarchy has on our day to day life (basically zero) it's easier to just let sleeping dogs lie
Those are biscuits sir. There are now British troops at your door to kill your family and subvert your culture. (This comment may be extreme, but I’m gonna go with it)
This isn't even on the radar, there's no support for this at this time. Just a few nutters got an audience with the king and now there's an article about it.
So, countries can multitask. I don't believe that it's a fair criticism of an action to say "I want the country to do this other action that I want".
It might be a fair criticism to say "the country isn't doing the thing that I want".
But countries are large organizations. There are many, many things that a country does in a given year, and many of them won't be the particular concern of some given individual. But that doesn't imply that those things shouldn't (or should) be done.
Australia already spends time and money maintaining the English monarch as the head of state. And it's not a ceremonial position; the governor-general has reserve powers, such as the ability to remove office holders, like in 1975. It is only convention, not law that appoints and makes the GG act on the PMs 'recommendations' rather than the Monarch; the description of the office has not been rewritten. We can't rely on convention to govern a country and need to have explicit laws that match our ideals of how a democracy should behave. It's unexploded ordinance that should be cleaned up.. let's do that rather than spending our time and money changing all the pictures on the money, and the pronouns on all the legal documents each time a monarch croaks.