Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 6 days ago
“It should spark a national conversation about the standards we will accept, how we want to see ourselves, be seen in the world, and particularly what we want our next generation of Aussies, in all of our beautiful diversity, to understand as our value set,” he said.
“No Australian could possibly support what we have seen.”
Okay Foster, talkin ya book a little too hard here mate. If this is the stance we should take with the British then we’d better tear up the ANZUS treaty as well, because the US is up to its sweaty sweaty armpits with Epstein.
I don’t know what Foster would say to that, but i doubt he has thought through equal application of his call for ‘national morality’ as he has jump at the opportunity to call for a Republic.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 6 days ago
I think you missed his point. He was talking about the monarchy which is a relationship between a nation and a particular set of individuals.
The relationship between two nations is different. Ideally it shouldn’t depend at all on who leads those nations but in practice it’s affected a lot. But I think it’s not wise for a leader to let their personal feelings about the leader of another country affect diplomacy. That’s Trump’s folly.
I say all this without a dog in the race, as a Canadian who likes Australians. I think Canada should work on improving relations with Australia and build a stronger partnership for mutual benefit.
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 5 days ago
I don’t think its different as you suggest. Its the individual who has sparked the question, in this case ‘ol’under age andy’, but they are actually both relationships between government accepted legal instruments.
The Aus-British one is, a Constitution to a Crown and (at least) Parliamentary Legislation of not another Constitution (likely implied i think🤔 The british have a funny informal constitution).
Or the Aus-US, is an alliance pact between countries ratified in their respective countries by congress+POTUS and Parliament+GG
The monarchy is more than a ‘set of people’. These people are pampered and wealthy custodians and advisors in the British+Commonwealth context. But the Crown acts as a default of power and ownership that means no one person can ever truly make unilateral claim/title to things. Its a bit of convenient legal fiction that acts very well to represent competing interests and the passing interests of time, unless I’ve misunderstood how the Crown acts.
Look I don’t mind either way he would like it interpreted is fine though. The consequences are of course the important part.
Removing the monarchy from Australia is just as consequential as removing ANZUS, probably larger. This is why I used the comparison. If its going to be suggested that we’re going to do it over morality and values of an individual then we’d better apply those principles there-abouts equally in our dealings or they’ll soon lose meaning.