4 ms·

I'm not a Commonwealth type, are the UK and Australian governments somehow linked?

pjc50 7y ago
Only through the Govenor-General, who is the Queen's standin in the Australian copy of the British system: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/16/queen-appoints-australias-next-governor-general-with-calls-for-it-to-be-her-last https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/16/queen...
- tomatocracy 7y ago
  Courts often look to judgments in other common law or Westminster systems, even though they aren’t precedents as such.
raverbashing 7y ago
Yes they have the same head of state: Queen Elizabeth II
- viraptor 7y ago
  Almost entirely for ceremonial purposes though. She gets presented things and signs other things, but basically if she doesn't follow, that would most likely be an immediate end to that position.
  - raverbashing 7y ago
    Yes, you are correct. Which kind of begs the question, what would happen if the position was terminated and possibly replaced with a President (which would have a bigger role)
    - roganartu 7y ago
      We already had a referendum in 1999 which was voted down. A president in Australia would be a significant departure from the current system, and I'm not sure I know anyone who would support it. We don't vote for a person to be Prime Minister, we vote for a person in our specific federal electoral seat and the leader of the party that wins the most seats is the Prime Minister. This person also doesn't have any powers that their party doesn't give them for the most part. No veto powers etc afaik, and party leadership (and hence the Prime Minister) can be changed at any time by a party vote.
      - vidarh 7y ago
        > A president in Australia would be a significant departure from the current system There are parliamentary systems with presidents as head of state with no significant power. E.g. Iceland. So it doesn't need to be much of a departure. Iceland simply replaced their king (also the Danish king) by a president, made the president elected, and changed little else. US style presidential government would certainly be a big departure.
        senectus1 7y ago
        I suspect, provided we keep mandatory voting we should be ok either way.
        elyobo 7y ago
        Really? It seems like one of the most insane parts of the Australian voting system. Forcing people that don't know enough to vote under their own motivation doesn't suddenly impart them knowledge or wisdom, it just introduces a huge number of low information voters into the system. NZ's approach seems safer; compulsory enrolment, so that come voting day everyone should be able to vote if they so choose. Voter turnout is still very high.
        cannabis_sam 7y ago
        Germany also has a president, but who the hell have heard about Frank-Walter Steinmeier? Meanwhile everyone knows Merkel
    - nicky0 7y ago
      Now you have the problem of a political president that wants to start doing controversial things, instead of a neutral head of state that at least all of the public can agree on. There is a lot of value of an apolitical the Queen as she unites (pretty much) the nation behind her. Regardless of political views, we can all say thats my Queen.
      - kevinmchugh 7y ago
        Unless your political views include an opposition to royalty.
      - vidarh 7y ago
        There's no reason why one has to give a president any more power than the monarch they're replacing.
        flycaliguy 7y ago
        A president would cost more I bet.
      - elyobo 7y ago
        I don't really see any value in that. We can all agree that the sun rises in the East as well, but so what? That said, while providing little benefit, the monarchy also causes little harm and there are more important things to be done than toppling figureheads.
    - myrandomcomment 7y ago
      Well that is not really true. The Queen fired the PM in 1975 and Australia did not change to a republic at that time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitution...
    - pmyteh 7y ago
      It's been done in a variety of other Westminster-model countries, using several different models - a lot of former UK colonies moved away from the Queen as head of state on independence. The closest eqivalent in kind is probably Ireland, where the President is also mostly a figurehead who holds reserve powers. Some countries have moved further to systems with an executive President, though.
    - rsynnott 7y ago
      Any president would probably have much the same role, in practice. The Irish president, say, has a similar role to the British monarch. Presidential democracies are rare in the developed west; it's not credible that the UK would become one.
mabbo 7y ago
I believe they are like Canada. The Queen is our Monarch, but has no real power here. The UK government is completely unrelated. We have a Governor general that is the Queen's viceregal representative, but we choose who that is.
nicoburns 7y ago
They're linked in that they have a similar system.

Only through the Govenor-General, who is the Queen's standin in the Australian copy of the British system: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/16/queen-appoints-australias-next-governor-general-with-calls-for-it-to-be-her-last https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/16/queen...

tomatocracy 7y ago
Courts often look to judgments in other common law or Westminster systems, even though they aren’t precedents as such.

raverbashing 7y ago

Yes they have the same head of state: Queen Elizabeth II

viraptor 7y ago
Almost entirely for ceremonial purposes though. She gets presented things and signs other things, but basically if she doesn't follow, that would most likely be an immediate end to that position.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  Yes, you are correct. Which kind of begs the question, what would happen if the position was terminated and possibly replaced with a President (which would have a bigger role)
  - roganartu 7y ago
    We already had a referendum in 1999 which was voted down. A president in Australia would be a significant departure from the current system, and I'm not sure I know anyone who would support it. We don't vote for a person to be Prime Minister, we vote for a person in our specific federal electoral seat and the leader of the party that wins the most seats is the Prime Minister. This person also doesn't have any powers that their party doesn't give them for the most part. No veto powers etc afaik, and party leadership (and hence the Prime Minister) can be changed at any time by a party vote.
    - vidarh 7y ago
      > A president in Australia would be a significant departure from the current system There are parliamentary systems with presidents as head of state with no significant power. E.g. Iceland. So it doesn't need to be much of a departure. Iceland simply replaced their king (also the Danish king) by a president, made the president elected, and changed little else. US style presidential government would certainly be a big departure.
      - senectus1 7y ago
        I suspect, provided we keep mandatory voting we should be ok either way.
        elyobo 7y ago
        Really? It seems like one of the most insane parts of the Australian voting system. Forcing people that don't know enough to vote under their own motivation doesn't suddenly impart them knowledge or wisdom, it just introduces a huge number of low information voters into the system. NZ's approach seems safer; compulsory enrolment, so that come voting day everyone should be able to vote if they so choose. Voter turnout is still very high.
      - cannabis_sam 7y ago
        Germany also has a president, but who the hell have heard about Frank-Walter Steinmeier? Meanwhile everyone knows Merkel
  - nicky0 7y ago
    Now you have the problem of a political president that wants to start doing controversial things, instead of a neutral head of state that at least all of the public can agree on. There is a lot of value of an apolitical the Queen as she unites (pretty much) the nation behind her. Regardless of political views, we can all say thats my Queen.
    - kevinmchugh 7y ago
      Unless your political views include an opposition to royalty.
    - vidarh 7y ago
      There's no reason why one has to give a president any more power than the monarch they're replacing.
      - flycaliguy 7y ago
        A president would cost more I bet.
    - elyobo 7y ago
      I don't really see any value in that. We can all agree that the sun rises in the East as well, but so what? That said, while providing little benefit, the monarchy also causes little harm and there are more important things to be done than toppling figureheads.
  - myrandomcomment 7y ago
    Well that is not really true. The Queen fired the PM in 1975 and Australia did not change to a republic at that time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitution...
  - pmyteh 7y ago
    It's been done in a variety of other Westminster-model countries, using several different models - a lot of former UK colonies moved away from the Queen as head of state on independence. The closest eqivalent in kind is probably Ireland, where the President is also mostly a figurehead who holds reserve powers. Some countries have moved further to systems with an executive President, though.
  - rsynnott 7y ago
    Any president would probably have much the same role, in practice. The Irish president, say, has a similar role to the British monarch. Presidential democracies are rare in the developed west; it's not credible that the UK would become one.

mabbo 7y ago

I believe they are like Canada. The Queen is our Monarch, but has no real power here. The UK government is completely unrelated. We have a Governor general that is the Queen's viceregal representative, but we choose who that is.

nicoburns 7y ago

They're linked in that they have a similar system.