The Australian Remaindered Movement

Australia is in no requirement of a US-style presidency with its grandiosity and propensity to throw up individuals of the Donald Trump variety. Australia is safer and better with the diffuse and representative power structure it currently enjoys.”

– Paul Keating’s understanding of the Constitution is best illustrated by his revelation that he “certainly” would have arrested Sir John Kerr in 1975 had he been prime minister. Given that Sir John commanded the armed forces, he presumably meant he would haved collared him personally. If he thinks the ARM’s latest ‘model’ for a federal presidency is bad (there are six other viceroys), it must be really bad

This entry was posted in Legal affairs, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to The Australian Remaindered Movement

  1. Entropy says:

    Bottom line: the political class want to control who the unwashed can pick from.

    The whole thing is an indulgence of a small group of people high up Nazkers heirachy of needs. The bandannaed pirate should have waited until Charles is King. He could put up a tyrannical kleptocracy then and succeed.

  2. Entropy says:

    Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

  3. cuckoo says:

    Thank goodness the republicans are arcing up again: I could do with a good laugh. Johannes Leak nails it (again).

  4. Not Trampis says:

    Nothing to do with Maslow.

    Keating has got this badly wrong. The ‘President’ is simply the G/G only voted for.
    There would be greater choice in selecting the ‘president’ than anyone has in the G/G which only the PM decides on. neither roles have any real power. Being in charge of the armed forces is in name only.

  5. Entropy says:

    A re you bagging out Keating?

  6. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Problem with all this is that Keating is entirely in favour of a republic; he just hates the idea that the unenlightened knuckle-dragging voters might vote for someone not of the Keatingesque stratum of luminous lefties. Can’t have that.

    Maybe he also has one eye on Chuck as a not-too-bad option, since he is pushing lots of lurvely lefty causes and is sure to go the full Gaia once enthroned.

  7. Buccaneer says:

    Paul Keating, all insult, no intellect

  8. Jay says:

    I wouldn’t trust any of these monkeys to change anything.

  9. Boambee John says:

    Non Compos Mnetis

    You’re not much of a deep thinker, are you? Probably the result of never graduating from kindy.

    Both Keating and Fitzsimian have a similar objective, to have a president beholden to politicians. They just have a different approach to the objective. This option was soundly rejected in 1999, and is likely to be rejected again if put forward.

    What might have some chance of success (particularly as the possibility of King Charles III looms larger) is a president elected by the nation voting as a single electorate. Such a president exists (in non-executive form) in Ireland.

    An alternative is to have an executive president. There are ways to produce such a result, but they will not be considered by the likes of Keating and the PC warriors of the ARM.

    Either way, if the president is not to be elected, then the next referendum will again fail.

    PS, “no real power”? EG Whitlam might differ!

  10. bollux says:

    I thought Daniel Andrews was President. Thanks to Paul I now know different.

  11. Texas Jack says:

    Boambee John

    Either way, if the president is not to be elected, then the next referendum will again fail.

    The “possibility of a King Charles III” is hardly worth debating, John. Having sworn to serve HM QE2, her heirs and successors, it’s difficult for me to write that I find the idea of continuing with the Mountbatten Windsor’s troubling, but I can’t be alone in that, and a minimal-change approach by ARM could start to see the crown wobble.

    Perhaps if Charles had chosen his mother’s path, avoiding entering political hot-topics, eh?

  12. Not Trampis says:

    is the GG an executive GG? Of course not. not even a moron would say that. If you merely change the name then in essence nothing changes except the people vote on the head of state. At present only one person has a say in who is the G/G and that is the PM.
    Kerr may well have had a laughable thought of how important he was but he was never in charge of the armed forces.
    It must be said his use of the reserve powers was poor at the time and made worse with time. Fraser never had any credibility as a PM following this. He was always chasing it and never found it.

    The G/G or the Queen if she is here is beholden to politicians. If you do not understand that then you are a moron.

  13. Boambee John says:

    Non Compos Mentis

    I think that I have your tag incorrect. It is not that your Mentis is unsound, it is that you have no Mentis at all.

    Are you seriously proclaiming that the only change is to the name? That all the campaigning by the ARM and various politicians was simply about a name change? That the 1999 referendum was simply about a name change, with no desire for an impact on the reserve powers?

    Why, then, the need for a name change? Why not keep the name and simply allow a vote? Cloud cuckoo land seems to be full of people who mounted long political campaigns over a cosmetic change.

    PS, is the GG an executive GG? Of course not. not even a moron would say that. Indeed, and only a mindless moron with non-existent reading comprehension skills would have read that into what I wrote. Go back and try again.

  14. Ivan Denisovich says:

    Tim Blair:

    Supreme Leader Celebrates Latest Heroic Victory

    …….This ARM announcement features precisely the same desperate, reality-denying tone as standard North Korean propaganda:

    Great news! The Australian Choice Model has been received with exceptional support from the media, our supporters and the Australian public. #

    The Australian’s Greg Craven, a constitutional lawyer, isn’t buying it:


    This is the achievement of Peter FitzSimons and his Australian Republic Movement. After years of cogitation, they have produced a model so incoherent, complex and downright wrong it makes Sydney’s traffic system look like a masterpiece in design.

    The writing is on the wall as soon as you glance at their blueprint. Instead of reasoning, much of the document is pictures: a koala, Uluru, a kangaroo and beaches. This is not a constitutional document, but a sales brochure for a very bad car.

    It is Fitzy’s greatest accomplishment. He can never top this.


  15. Boambee John says:

    Texas Jack

    Perhaps if Charles had chosen his mother’s path, avoiding entering political hot-topics, eh?

    Putting aside the Kerr/Whitlam incident (after which an election confirmed voter support for Kerr’s action), we have had a GG who did not avoid “entering political hot-topics”, in the form of Sir William Deane. Deane was appointed by Keating just before the 1996 election.

  16. Boambee John says:

    Great news! The Australian Choice Model

    That the whole thing is simple politics is demonstrated by ARM choosing a name for their proposal, The Australian Choice Model, which has the same acronym, ACM, as their opponents in Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. Smug, infantile, faculty lounge politics!

  17. C.L. says:

    It is Fitzy’s greatest accomplishment. He can never top this.

    Big call. 🙂

  18. Ivan Denisovich says:

    Big call

    Very true.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *