• Nath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    The real answer to this question is “habit”. The people who drew up the Australian Constitution in the 1890’s thought of themselves as British citizens, even though they were literally making plans for a new nation that would be independent of England. In terms of taxes, I don’t believe Commonwealth membership costs us much - though I’m not super informed on this point. I could be swayed on the matter.

    Even as citizens of the new nation of Australia, that generation of Australians still thought of themselves as British, too. It took a few more generations for us to really think of ourselves as purely and exclusively Australian.

    If the constitution were being drafted up today, we’d have a serious conversation about whether we’d be a Constitutional Monarchy or some sort of Republic. But, it’s not and we’re not.

    There are real advantages to being a member of the Commonwealth of nations. I’m not entirely dissatisfied with the status quo. If we ever do split from the Commonwealth, I’d want to look closely at what is proposed to replace it. I would not for example want our government to end up like what our friends in the USA have.

    • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      While America is certainly a dumpster fire I would argue getting rid of all monarchist influence was one of the few good things it did. Of course over time it went from a progressive country to a regressive country and today a country of reactionaries.

      • Nath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        23 hours ago

        I would argue getting rid of all monarchist influence was one of the few good things it did.

        What is the problem with the monarchy? That they’re unelected? Well, neither are the Billionaires who fill that same niche in US politics. Except Billionaires have a strong agenda and really drive the popular and political narrative. Even here, we’re not entirely immune to the influence of the Billionaire class. Only, I find myself at odds with just about everything the Billionaires say. By contrast, the royals rarely engage with politics. When they do, I find myself in agreement with the things they champion more often than not.

        I do understand that the royals have a lot of influence on our government. And that when they speak, we’re all but obligated to give them at least an audience. But that brings me back to the previous sentence: I can’t think of anything they’ve said that I took substantive issue with. I say this also as someone who never much liked Charlie. I liked his mum and first wife, though.

        This is coming across as me being pro-royal. I’m not really black-or-white on them like that. My own stance is more that I don’t have anything strongly against them - rather than being particularly pro-royal. I won’t cry myself to sleep if Australia cuts ties with the monarchy. But, I’m not marching in the streets seeking that outcome, either.

          • sqgl@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            15 hours ago

            The only place I have seen that work was the Internet in the 90’s. Nowhere in the real world.

            Humanity just isn’t spiritually evolved for anarchy. It may never be.

            • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              12 hours ago

              It worked for a time in Catalonia until the Fascists destroyed them, in Ukraine it worked very well but the soviets destroyed them as well. Its not that it doesn’t work but rather that the right conditions haven’t been met yet.