Paddy14 wrote:I don't understand the problem. We did all this in class, and even I understand that in a Constitutional Monarchy the King or Queen does not rule. She has no power other than to deny absolute power to the executive branch of government. If the Prime Minister and Cabinet act unconstitutionally, the Queen can dissolve Parliament and send the people to the polls. She doesn't make laws or tell anyone what to do. It is probably the best, safest system of government in the world. She is also respected across the world, and I know the US system is not the only other choice, but do we want to be represented in the world by someone like President Trump?
Well, in theory the British Crown has absolute power. After all the military in subject nations are loyal to the Crown. So in an emergency the Crown controls the guns. And you know what Mao said about power and guns.
But back to Australia. If we turfed out the Queen, we would be replaced her with an elected version of reserved power. So the president would be the holder of the reserve powers rather than the top of executive power as in France or America. The PM and his cabinet would remain the focus of executive power as well as leading legislative power by leading the parliament.
The main issue is how to elect the symbolic head of state. The political establishment wanted to appoint or vote within the parliament. So they would decide. Others prefer a popular vote. In any event, the candidates would likely be retired politicians, judges or possibly generals, so it would still be a case of reinforcing establishment power.
I suspect the reason why the last referendum failed was that enough people felt a distant foriegn Queen was sufficiently removed from domestic power groups that she would be more trustworthy in using the reserv powers.