whats the attitude of australians towards the UK

1. Awful terrible empire-building country representing the past. we should have as little to do with them as possible.

2. Its an ok country, but not different from any other and we should have no ties to them or symbolism of any kind as it sends ot the wrong message and will as such be an obstacle towards integration with asia.

3. Its just another european country.

4. Just another european country, but to be honest (and dont tell anyone, I said this) I do like them and I would trust them a bit more than others in a case of world crisis and it is one of our closest allies.

5. We are quite similar and share many fundamental values and it would be mutually beneficial for us as two closely allied independent states to actively increase our foreign policy and military coorporation.

6. Deep down we are all british.


I would guess 3 is the official line, though 2 and 4 might be widely held as well. I would like to see 5 though I know its not realistic.

Incidently, I am from neither country, but I have a lot of sympathy for both of them.

I'd settle for 4 or 5, but still wish for Australia to become a republic. The fact is, as much of a pommy-bashing country we are, we love the Brits, we share their sense of humour, many of us travel and work in the UK (and they invade Bondi Beach in return), and even immigrants to Australia and their offspring (like myself), who don't have a single tie to the UK in any way, have adopted the mutual relationship of taking the piss out of each other, much like brothers or sisters do.

I'm not sure what you mean by the official line being 3 through. With our current Prime Minister, it's closer to 6 than anything. Even the Labor party who want a republic and often try to minimise the British influence in Australia, wouldn't stray below 4 in your scale.

I would go with somewhere between 4 and 5.

I like the Aussies loads, its the best place to go on Holiday in the world. they have good TV, good humour like ourselves, and they can actually drink cause for a minute i was thinking us British were the only alcoholics.

The babes are hot also and so's the weather.

... BUT I LIKE OUR LITTLE RIVALRY, The scottish tend to think were thier rivals yet we dont really care about them same with you and New Zealand.

Plus, Neighbours rule!

P.S Whats happening in neighbours in OZ, what happning with Izzy and the baby of hers?

... also, I think your gonna get some beats in the Olympic pool this year and the ash's next year.

The old English boys just one thier 8th test in a row, and have gone 2-0 up against the West Indies with another 200 run win.

Plus, Neighbours rule!



Ya jorking!! :runaway:

I'd go with option 1, with a slightly less obtrusive tone.. =)

Australia really has nothing to do with england, it has as much to do with england as the US does...

I do appreciate many of the pro aussie atitudes that many brits have as oppossed to the general indifference many americans seem to exhibit, but our sense of humour is quite different I think, and it baffles me as to why we have so much crappy british tv on channels like ABC, reflecting the american crap we have on the commercial channels.. But then again, our native bred australian tv is not much to talk about either!!! Hmm.. I shouldn't be so negative, but oh well..

7. How can a country manage to suck at every single sport they invent?

7. How can a country manage to suck at every single sport they invent?

platinum.

7. How can a country manage to suck at every single sport they invent?

Well not all.

The main problem here is that a lot of city schools sports fields have been sold for development by the government. Poorer kids have nowhere to do sports. The climate in winter doesn't help either in getting kids participating in sport at a young age.

Well not all.

The main problem here is that a lot of city schools sports fields have been sold for development by the government. Poorer kids have nowhere to do sports. The climate in winter doesn't help either in getting kids participating in sport at a young age.

I dunno. I agree with the first part, there needs to be a far bigger boost to sport at school level, and then at professional level, which Australia has (Australia's Institute of Sport has done amazing things to Australia's sporting achievments), and is lacking in Britain. But there are attempts of late to change this, Britain has been introducing similar efforts to the A.I.S, and it has shown recently.

But I doubt weather has anything to do with it. Britain is cold to you, because your from a hotter country, and not used to it. But for British people, this is normal, and kids have absolutely no worries about the cold. Afterall, New Zealand, a country with a similar climate to Britain, also is an excellent sporting nation. Germany has a far colder winter than Britain, and again, does pretty well in sports. And even the U.S. or Canada, both excellent sporting nations have may cold area's - I doubt all of the sports stars in the U.S. come from the sun belts.

And in opposite, Spain and Italy, are both sun drenched nations, but don't do better in sport than Germany.

4&5 would be my ideal and to become a Republic sooner rather than later.

Well I am slightly surprised at the positive voting.

Why are the british always accepting the idea that they are crap at sports??

Rugby: world champions
Cricket: ranked 2nd in the world
Football: Top 10 (Qualified for 9 out of the last 10 major championships usually reaching the knock-out stage)
Golf: perhaps 2nd? (dont really know much about it)
Tennis: ok not very good.

Its stark raving lunacy to consider the UK poor

Dont become a republic!
Its a terribly sad boring thing compared to a monarchy. If you want to ditch the british then start your own monarchy

maybe the fifth reason....I don't see any need to change......
I moved to London from OZ 4 years ago....we do share the same sense of humour as the British..one of the few other countries besides OZ that can laugh at themselves....the UK is fucking great...and so is Australia

Well I am slightly surprised at the positive voting.

Why are the british always accepting the idea that they are crap at sports??

Rugby: world champions
Cricket: ranked 2nd in the world
Football: Top 10 (Qualified for 9 out of the last 10 major championships usually reaching the knock-out stage)
Golf: perhaps 2nd? (dont really know much about it)
Tennis: ok not very good.

Its stark raving lunacy to consider the UK poor

Dont become a republic!
Its a terribly sad boring thing compared to a monarchy. If you want to ditch the british then start your own monarchy

Hmm.. I think i can manage that...

I am now KING KUSH!!! hoorj! Send me your taxes.. thx..

well, kush, I am not kidding, Norway did it that way when establishing a monarchy independent of the danish. They found some cousin of the danish king and asked him whether he fancied the job.

Several cities in Denmark have just held the biggest street parties in their history for the first visits of the newly-wed heir to the throne and his australian wife. all-day concerts and celebrations, pride in having such a great couple as our future king and queen giving everone a sense that all is well in the country.

Republicanism? how boring, spend a lot of money to elect some boring old ex-politician which a significant part of the people will dislike. No, move the head of state above politics and let him represent the whole country.

Surely no country today would actually choose to establish a monarchy. If it's a true monarchy then there is a absence of democracy and if there is an elected prime minister or president then the monarch is redundant. I mean can someone tell me what Queen Elizabeth actually does?

I have nothing against the British but I'll be voting for Mark Latham in the hope we can establish a system of government free of antiquated royal families that serve no purpose except providing fodder for woman's magazines

Totally agree with your whole post Oriolus.

I wish there would be a serious push for a republic here in NZ,but I get the impression New Zealand is waiting to see what happens with Aus.......?

Surely no country today would actually choose to establish a monarchy. If it's a true monarchy then there is a absence of democracy and if there is an elected prime minister or president then the monarch is redundant. I mean can someone tell me what Queen Elizabeth actually does?


Well if a monarch is redundant, why would Australia have a president instead? Or would that not be the case?
He will supposedly take over doing nothing then.

You are of course perfectly entitled to have such negative views on other countries´ forms of government, just dont assume that its shared everywhere.

Does the Queen govern England ?

Does the Queen govern England ?

Does the German president govern Germany?

Who knows how much he really does,but I'm sure his job is based more around government than pageantry and traditional ceremonies etc.

I'm not saying that any country with a monarchy should get rid of it just because I personally think they are bullshit,because if the people in their respective countries want them(monarchs) for whatever reason then thats cool.

The british queen most likely governs England formally. Thats what the danish one does anyway. Of course she has zero political influence thats the whole point.

I actually think they try to keep presidents away from being involved with government in those countries, because then he becomes embroiled in all the political issues. Dont forget once you ditch the queen you are going to have to elect someone else and it would inevitably be someone a lot of people didnt like.

Of course its difficult to just explain in a few words why I think its a great institution (I may try later) but then again why does it matter so much if national football teams do well.
Why on earth should it matter to the average NZ´er whether 15 of his countrymen in a black jersey do well?? It just does.

Totally agree with your whole post Oriolus.

I wish there would be a serious push for a republic here in NZ,but I get the impression New Zealand is waiting to see what happens with Aus.......?
Most European monarchies are originally from Germany, as is the House Of Windsor, which changed its name in 1929. Monarchies are also hereditory dynasties, no different to Sultan of Brunei, or for that matter any large organisation. Australians do not have right of entry to Uk, unless parents are from there,so it is absurd that the head of state is a foreigner. Australia is not a branch office of Britain, and if we are to live comfortably beside large Muslim cultures, it will be important to have respect, by having our own identity.In my travels through Indonesia, I learned that when Napolean had invaded Holland in the early 1800s, the Dutch East Indies was ruled for 8 years by Raffles who came from Singapore, and this was at a time when they had slavery. So they look south and see countries that are relics from an oppressive time. There are also different types of republics.The Federal Republic of Germany has a head of state who is non political. I agree that I also enjoyed the pageantry of the wedding in Denmark of Princess Mary of Tasmania to Prince Fredrik of Denmark. I like Denmark,but think Australia must show that it has its own personalites, and I would be more than happy to have the Governor General be that.

KOTA: Fair enough all you write, I have no real opinion about it except I dont really like that thing about the reason for ditching the queen being that it would be easier to live among muslim nations.. there are quite a few muslims in Britain..

The german president is non-political, but is always a former politician, so he is non-political in the sense that John Howard would be a non-political candidate if he retired from politics.

Australia has never been oppressed by the way??? I guess you would vote 1 or 2 then?

KOTA: Fair enough all you write, I have no real opinion about it except I dont really like that thing about the reason for ditching the queen being that it would be easier to live among muslim nations.. there are quite a few muslims in Britain..

Australia has never been oppressed by the way??? I guess you would vote 1 or 2 then?
Kingdomca, I am wondering whether you are a resident of UK or Australia?.Firstly, the former British Empire was attained by military conquest, and I do not wish to drag skeletons from the closet, but a lot of horrible things happened here with the aborigines, and the wars with Maoris in NZ where Britain signed a treaty in 1841.The point I make is that we are relative newcomers to this part of the globe, just over 216 years, where as the South East Asian countries have been here all along.The other point I make is that what was the old Empire, is now the Commonwealth of Nations, which comprise 51 odd countries, of which 32 are republics.They have the same status as the UK. Australia and NZ are looked upon as like children that 'never grew up', as realistically we are still subordinate to an empire that has been and gone. President Megawati of Indonesia, despite invitations from John Howard to visit Australia, has never done so, and on many occasions has snubbed our country. As far as the UK is concerned, I think it will actually improve relations, as the status of Australia will have reached the same rank as worlds leading countries.

I am a pretty much aware of all you are writing, though I cant help feel you are exaggerating the importance of Australia`s head of state, but I agree it wouldnt hurt relations with the UK at all to get rid of the queen which is why I dont really care about that.

I am neither as I am danish. I am just here to try and find out whether it would be realistic to have closer cooporation between Australia and the UK and Canada for that matter simply because I think these countries agree on many issues, but rarely talk to eachother but only to the US.

If they stood together they might influence the US more and would no doubt be backed by some of the US-friendly european nations such as Denmark instead of now where they dont seem to talk much to eachother but are just following americas´ lead.

Hmm didnt phrase that very well

Well if a monarch is redundant, why would Australia have a president instead? Or would that not be the case?
He will supposedly take over doing nothing then.

You are of course perfectly entitled to have such negative views on other countries´ forms of government, just dont assume that its shared everywhere.
Ofcourse the interesting thing about the "British" monarchy is that they are basically all from German stock in fact they used to say the only real English Royal was Diana.
In any case we all ready have the"real King of England" living in QLD according to a recent BBC doco.

Why do we have one of these threads every 2 months.
Nothing has changed since the last one.

well, it was supposed to be about UK-Australian relations and whether they should cooporate more, but good to see a few 4-5´s before it got sidetracked.

Kingdomca, I am wondering whether you are a resident of UK or Australia?.Firstly, the former British Empire was attained by military conquest, and I do not wish to drag skeletons from the closet, but a lot of horrible things happened here with the aborigines, and the wars with Maoris in NZ where Britain signed a treaty in 1841.The point I make is that we are relative newcomers to this part of the globe, just over 216 years, where as the South East Asian countries have been here all along.The other point I make is that what was the old Empire, is now the Commonwealth of Nations, which comprise 51 odd countries, of which 32 are republics.They have the same status as the UK. Australia and NZ are looked upon as like children that 'never grew up', as realistically we are still subordinate to an empire that has been and gone. President Megawati of Indonesia, despite invitations from John Howard to visit Australia, has never done so, and on many occasions has snubbed our country. As far as the UK is concerned, I think it will actually improve relations, as the status of Australia will have reached the same rank as worlds leading countries.HAHAHA - Its Indonesia's loss....not Australia's if Megawati has a chip on his shoulder :)

Just for an opinion from the other side. I don't think the UK-Australian Relationship is important at all, I don't feel any kinship with Australians whatsoever. I don't understand why many of my countrymen seem to speak so highly of Australia and Australians. Quite amusing when White Right-Wing Australians talk sanctomoniously about what Britain did to the Aboriginal Groups. Your relationship should concentrate on our relationship with Europe, which is considerably the most important by a long way. Additionally I believe the Commonwealth should be dissolved, its a talking shop, does no-one any good and is a relic from the past.

I do however wish no Australian any ill, - though of course I doubt such sentiments are recipricated - and would be happy as a Staunch Republican to see another Republic - we're not all monarchists here as well - in the World, but if you vote for Bush Loving right-wingers who fix the referenda and seek to ban gay marriage, you pay the price, just as we have learned with Blair, though at least he was supposed to be left-wing. Its nice to think that someone else will be taking the status of Poodle to America, when we elect Rifkind of Brown.

Thank you, Lostboy, the very fact that you dont feel kinship with Australia pretty much convinces me that the vast majority of british do, that being those who dont hate the place, arent extreme left-wingers and dont actually consider it a police state responsible for genocide in Sudan and just about everything else.
It must be frustrating hating Blair so much when its pretty obvious that he will easily win the next election, but at least there will be no need to find new things to hate.


Britain doesnt have a one single relationship which is more important than any other.
Its key security ally is and remains the US just as it is for Australia, whereas Europe is a crucial in a economic sense. Its not a choice.

Most british will never base their security solely on germany and france but the US, however most british would also disagree with the US on many issues, especially the unconditional support for Israel, and I think the same could be said for Australia and Canada. If these, the closest friends to the US, pulled together I think they could affect the US far more.

The role of the monarch in a constitutional monarchy is essential to this form of government. Pomp and circumstance may appear to be the only function of a monarch within the monarchy system, but that is the fault of those who do not understand how it works.

I definetely think a constitutional monarchy is an inherently superior form of government over a republic.






"Surely no country today would actually choose to establish a monarchy. "


Why wouldn't they? Many countries continue to remain under a constitutional monarchy and have no intentions of changing to anything else...what would be the point...a republic is an inferior form of governance.

Also, establishing a monarchy from scratch is not something you can do very easily. A republic is simple...the republic is like the fast-food of governmental establishments.








"If it's a true monarchy then there is a absence of democracy "

I think you are mixing up fairy tales with reality. We are talking about a constitutional monarchy...not a kingdom where a hereditary monarch owns and rules a country.






"if there is an elected prime minister or president then the monarch is redundant. "


Wrong again....in a constitutional monarchy, the role of monarch and prime minister are completely different and separate roles....and they are both crucial to it....otherwise that government system would cease to exist.


Nothing wrong with debating the pros and cons of various government styles, but what's the point if you have no clue about what you are talking about?





KGB

I can't remember the corresponding number, but basically I think Australians see the UK as a European nation with which it shares many similarities, and of course history. The influence of the UK in Australia is still greater than other European nations, although that is relatively smaller than say the US, or major Asian nations, and will continue to decline in influence/relevance.

As has been alluded to by other posters, there is no specific disadvantage to being a constitutional monarchy as opposed to a republic. Australia has a very strong democracy, and would suggest that its democratic credentials are in fact stronger than either the UK or US. In the end though, only for cosmetic purposes, I would like Australia to become a "republic" by keeping exactly the same system it has now, but removing all references to the British head of State (the Queen).

@KGB, agree with you pretty much totally. With regards to a republic being a "fast-food" solution, I would go further to say that, if not planned properly, it is a very dangerous fast-food establishment indeed.

@Lostboy, you seem to lack genuine knowledge of Australian politics; I am not going to comment about British politics as I am not there to know all there is to know, although am aware of a lot of the goings-on. BTW, when I get back to Australia I'll ensure that an ID card becomes the platform of a political party and will vote for it :yes:

@nick-taylor, RE Megawati, it is indeed HER loss... nonetheless, an improved relationship with Indonesia is of extreme importance to Australia long-term.

@kingdomca and kota16, I like your intelligent discussion, keep it up!

Cheers

Let's invite Princess Madeleine of Sweden, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland, to be our next head of state (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=106490)


:banana2:

"but removing all references to the British head of State "


This seems to be a big contention with people....if you consider your monarch to be a foreigner, then you are worrying over nothing. The Queen of Canada is a Canadian...the Queen of Australia is an Australian. The fact that the actual person who is monarch has multi citizenship should only worry people if they can't perform the duty.

The whole idea that you just can't come up with a monarch easily is also the reason why they are a better institution. This is why we choose a proven monarch as opposed to trying to start one from scratch....too risky.

Remember...it's far better to entrench ultimate power to a non-partisan institution which represents ALL people, as opposed to a temporary partisan political figure.

Most of us only think of the monarch as a silly character in the tabloid sense. Their real serious function is generally not thought about for the very reason it works. But we should be aware of the seriousness of the institution, regardles of whether that function needs to be tested or not.







KGB

they should turn it into a reality tv show when the queen dies... big brother meets who wants to be queen of england... maybe with a touch of idle in it aswell...

I've said this before but I've always found it the greatest disappointment that Oz along with NZ and Canada never federated into some sort United Dominons thing, a relationship of total politcal equality. That really pisses me off because I got family in Oz so I relate to the relationship on a personal level.

well they were united in the British Empire initially, and after the Statute of Westminster was enacted, the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth continues to exist and assumes a role in international diplomacy between Commonwealth member states (its arguably a stronger body than the United Nations because it is smaller and consists of nations of "British" values which makes it less prone to the endless deadlocks of nations with no common history and culture in any way).

The dominions chose their own future. It required help along the way - Britain had to insist that the dominions be admitted as member states of the League of Nations (something which is arguably wrong because none of Canada, Australia, South Africa or New Zealand had independant foreign policies --> vote stacking for Britain in the League) and they were granted their independance of foreign policy (but that is as opposed to seizing it, which would have been messy on all accounts). But the Statute of Westminster was enacted and that was that. The rest, to quote a cliche, is history

I am a pom who has spent the last 4 years in Singapore and Australia. I have just returned to London and, after 3 months, am aware of the extraordinary situation in which Australians, Indians, Albanians, etc seem to be desperate to come over here while everyone else is desperate to leave (mostly to go to Australia) (of course this is a generalisation). Users like AussieinSoho (note the name) like London cos they retain the ability to escape - they have a safety net to which to return. I'd personally take Singapore or Australia over London any day. Singapore - intelligent, cosmopolitan, safe, fun. Australia - direct, open, wild, beautiful, warm. The thing that has shocked me most about coming back here has been the class system - aaargh! Why shouldn't everyone start life with a clean slate so each person's achievements stand by themselves?

There are a couple of managers in my office in London that went to the right schools, have the right accent, etc. And they are completely useless, they get paid heaps as well, around £60K a year, about $150K Aust.