01.19.06

Their Mates for Head Of State

Posted in Patriotism at 9.57 am by daniel

In a hilarious sign of desperation the Australian Republican Movement (or what’s left of it) have launched a new grand slogan – A Mate For Head of State.

I kid you not, that’s what they’re calling it.

Since 1999, when they lost their republican referendum in what can only be described as a landslide, they’ve ummed and ahhed, come up with a horde of convoluted plans, lost a massive portion of their subscriber base and now, in 2006, it all boils down to a slogan; and a bad one at that.

A mate for head of state? How about;

Their Mate For Head Of State;
Yet Another Politician In Canberra

With politicians backing it that’s all it reads as. Do they really think the promise of another politician or another one of their mates (Steve Vizard or Richard Butler perhaps?) is going to cause a groundswell of support for their cause?

Already it hasn’t if Technorati is anything to go by. After as much publicity as their likely to get, including a nice big column in the Herald Sun, the amount of discussion around the concept amounts to four single entries. One is by Professor David Flint from Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, another from Pharoz (which included a link to the ARM’s Microsoft Paint created poster – a classy job to be sure), a New Zealand Republican site, and another at Obiter Dicta by Steve discussing the language used in a debate on the topic and not than the topic itself.

The great new republican slogan has seen them feature in four blogs to date (I’ll make that five!!). There’s grass root support if I ever I saw it.

While I’m on the topic; the aforementioned column in the Herald Sun was written by Peter van Vliet, head of the Australian Republican Movement in Victoria. It’s a fairly yawnable piece on the etymology of the word ‘mate’ in Australia. And while he tried to use as many evocative terms as he could, such as British Monarchy (the Queen of Australia is a position separate from the British Monarchy Peter), and lied about the fact that becoming a republic wouldn’t mean leaving the Commonwealth (we’d have to get voted back in by the other members Peter), his argument seemingly boiled down to this;

One can hardly imagine walking up to the next in line for the crown, Prince Charles, and saying “G’day mate, howya going?'’

Well I saw a lady do just that when Prince Charles visited Melbourne. But Peter is right, ‘one could hardly imagine walking up to’ Prince Charles and saying “G’day mate�. I couldn’t even imagine an American doing that to their President, or a Briton doing that to Tony Blair. Not because none of these people can be our ‘mates’, our friends – but simply because I was brought up, like 99% of Australians, with manners. It’s out of respect and knowing better that we don’t approach Prince Charles and say “G’day mate�.

Tags: , , ,

6 Comments »

  1. Allan said,

    January 19, 2006 at 10.13 am

    Hi Daniel,

    I just read this article, and I have to say.. Im moved! I cant imagine Australia without imagining the commonwealth. Without our link, no, Australia’s heirtage as part of the Commonwealth. I feel we would slip further and further into Americanising our culture or would that be Americanizing. We would soon lose the u from colour and the young people of Australia would slip further into the ‘American’ culture(and not the good kind)

    Seeyah.
    Allan.

  2. David Latimer said,

    January 20, 2006 at 10.28 pm

    The accusation that Peter van Vliet lied is, of course, a lie. I would have thought the new slogan was enough to talk about without perpetuating falsehoods about the Commonwealth of Nations.

    Rest assured Alan that, Australia will remain in the Commonwealth. There is NO requirement to be voted back in. We’d also remain in the United Nations, we’d remain in APEC, we’d remain in all other treaty organisations that we belong. India, South Africa and many other republican nations are in the Commonwealth. It’s just misinformation.

    Membership of the Commonwealth depends upon two things. A historical association with Britain or the Commonwealth and recognising the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth. No republican has ever suggested that the Queen should not be so recognised. Republicans of all persuasions support the Commonwealth and Australia’s membership of it.

    On 2nd November 1999, just prior to the republican referendum, so shocked and surprised was the Commonwealth Secretariat about the misinformation being spread, they took the unusual step of issuing a press release, even though it could have been interpreted as interferring with domestic politics. The press release was titled “Australian Commonwealth membership not in doubt”.
    http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=34701

    One of the great weaknesses of the monarchist cause seems to be that they rely so heavily on misinformation. They don’t factor in the damage they do to the reputation of the Commonwealth when this is done. It also assures republicans that they are acting with integrity and in the best intrests of the nation.

  3. daniel said,

    January 20, 2006 at 10.58 pm

    One of the great weaknesses of the monarchist cause seems to be that they rely so heavily on misinformation. Rely heavily on misinformation? They don’t need any, the proof is in the pudding and the fantastic country we live is is that proof.

    Also inaccurate on the Commonwealth comments;

    Ms Henry told AAP that in 1999 the monarchists pushed an effective “scare campaign” the nation would be thrown out of the Commonwealth Games if it had an Australian head of state.

    This is completely untrue.

    ACM never claimed that if Australia became a republic we would be thrown out of the Commonwealth.

    When Daryl Williams, the Federal Attorney General, claimed in 1999 that in the event that we became a republic, we would continue in the Commonwealth without the need to reapply for membership, he demonstrated that the republicans were extraordinarily unaware of the history and practice of the Commonwealth.

    ACM pointed out that Commonwealth practice required that the Australian government notify the Secretary General of any such change. He would then contact all the other 52 members of the Commonwealth seeking their concurrence for the change. If any one objected, or declined concurrence, the application would fail.

    When it became apparent that their application would fail in 1960, South Africa withdrew its application. The South African republicans had assured the electors, especially the English- speaking whites, that a South African republic could stay in the Commonwealth.

    They forgot or ignored the practice established when India became a republic.

    And in 1987, Fiji did not proceed with its application to stay in the Commonwealth when it became obvious that some members would exercise their veto.

    Instead of accepting the position, the ARM, in a series of press releases, launched a torrent of abuse. They said we were silly, that our argument was an insult to the intelligence of Australians, our behavior was shameful.

    Bob Hawke, on the John Laws programme, went so far as to accuse me of being a liar.

    So I wrote to the Commonwealth Secretary General, Chief Anyaoku, who confirmed that ACM was correct.

    From Republicans rewrite history in attempt to politicize Commonwealth Games.

  4. David Latimer said,

    January 21, 2006 at 11.49 am

    My dear Daniel,

    I very much enjoyed your comment. This is what you said “[Peter van Vliet] lied about the fact that becoming a republic wouldn’t mean leaving the Commonwealth.”

    This how Allen interpreted your words, “Im moved! I cant imagine Australia without imagining the commonwealth. Without our link, no, Australia’s heirtage as part of the Commonwealth.”

    Then this is what is said in your followup: “ACM never claimed that if Australia became a republic we would be thrown out of the Commonwealth.”

    So, are you accusing the ACM of being liars too?

    For the record there the concept of a veto is pure invention, the Commonwealth Secretary general never confirmed the view of the ACM (again see the press release)

  5. daniel said,

    January 21, 2006 at 7.57 pm

    My dear Daniel

    I’m not even touching that one.

    So, are you accusing the ACM of being liars too?

    Ah no, in my opinion becoming a republic would mean leaving the Commonwealth. For a start, by default we would be out and would require the votes of other members to remain in. It would only be decent of Australia to be willing to leave given we’d be changing the very basis of our society (not that this will ever happen).

    Of course, republicans can deny this till the cows come home. The majority deny that the Australia flag would change as well.

  6. David Latimer said,

    January 22, 2006 at 8.58 am

    So there we have it.

    You are calling ARM’s Peter van Vliet a liar, because you hold a different opinion.

    Thanks for clearing that up.

Leave a Comment


Parse error: syntax error, unexpected $end in /nfs/c01/h05/mnt/9272/domains/danieldykes.com/html/wp-content/plugins/SK2/sk2_comment_class.php on line 316