“Prince William cannot be faulted for what he has said and done during this tour, nor can it be denied that his visit has lifted the spirits of those who turned out to see him,” admits the editor of The Age (22/3)
“With the significant exception of Queensland's Premier, Anna Bligh, Australian politicians who have visited the disaster areas have not notably managed to do the same.”
The editor is clearly worried “This tour will inevitably be seized on by advocates of the monarchy as a vindication of the institution and Australia's residual ties to it,” he laments.He asserts this will not change Australia's republican debate.
….we didn’t in 1999….
In 1999, the republicans attacked us for not mentioning The Queen. We argued only on the basis of the constitution, not on the well known virtues of the Sovereign. Just look at the No case distributed to every voter, and the ACM publications “The No case Papers,” and “The Cane Toad Republic.”Mr. Editor we did not argue on the virtues of the Sovereign.
And Mr. Editor, in spite of The Age’s passionate attempt to promote the 1999 flawed republican model, the people, nationally, in every State and 72% of electorates rejected it.And please don’t tell us John Howard manipulated it. There were more republicans than monarchists at the Convention, including more nominated delegates.
The referendum legislation – the title of which constituted the referendum question – was approved by a Parliament overwhelmingly dominated by republicans.
In fact about two thirds of both houses were republicans.
….republicans at war over…. The Queen!…
In fact it’s ironical that it is the republican politicians ho today argue that The Queen’s virtues are such they would lose a referendum.So it had better be in the next reign.
The republican movement disagrees. In fact they are at one another’s throats.
Their vice chair and media director has issued a vicious and personal denunciation of the Prime Minister about this.
The last straw for him was if the Prime Minister agreeed to go to the Royal Wedding. She has.
The republican movement is at war with the republican Prime Minister.
….lame reason for politicians’ republic…
The editor (who publishes every day under a page one variation of the Royal Coat of Arms) offers this lame reason for becoming some vague republic: It will still be just as inappropriate for this independent nation to have a head of state who resides in another country, and for the people of this country to have no part in choosing the head of state.
Mr. Editor, the head of state lives here and is appointed by the Sovereign on the advice of Her Australian Ministers.