I have only two criticisms of Helen Clark, the former Prime Minister of New Zealand - that is, the sound of her voice and the words they form:The most remarkable topic in her speech was when she asserted New Zealand will inevitably give up the British monarchy as head of state.The Prime Minister of Australia too has been guilty of this "not if but when" republican arrogance, as have many others before. It is an attitude that pronounces with totalitarian authority a ruling to which it allows no appeal. Like Moses they command that the monarchy is toast, thou shall not even question the inevitability of what they are saying.
"It's a question of not if but when," she said during her farewell address, which was light on emotion.
She also took the opportunity to attack the return of titular honours, introduced by the National government shortly after their return to power.
I for one am not so arrogant as to presume what will eventually happen, but I can perceive no weight of inevitablity to the republican position. Our constitutions are not political feathers, they are tablets that can only be changed with sustained hurculean concerted effort. Perhaps that is why republicans talk like Moses, because it would take the equivalent of a Moses to remove the Crown from our constitutions.
You know, there just might be something to the recent academic theory that Moses was hallucinating under the influence of a mind-altering drug at the time of his biblical achievements. It has been revealed that the acacia tree, frequently mentioned in the Bible, contains one of the most psychedelic substances known to man. Republican Boomers know all about psychedelic substances - it is high time they stopped smoking them.
It is a shame that Helen Clark thinks a New Zealand republic is inevitable when examples such as Fiji demonstrate the corruption when those who seek power both reign and govern. Monarchy may have faults however the constitutional form of Monarchy ensures a Prime Minister who governs can be dismissed by she who reigns when they no longer have majority support (Australia – Gough Whitlam).
ReplyDeleteOh, and legalised shooting of citizens is never a good look - http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=118886. Am uncertain if it’s okay to post an external link but I really had to substantiate that ‘shooting citizens’ claim.
The last pathetic whine of a left wing politician who's time has long past.
ReplyDeleteRudd has to stick to the republic position he used in the BBC interview, even though I have no expectation that he wants to do anything on the issue (at least during the Queen's reign), for two reasons.
ReplyDelete1. Republicanism is part of the glue that sticks the two wings of the core Labor vote together - blue collar NESB voters and white collar public sector workers. It costs nothing and is useful "mood music", unlikely to be realised easily (if at all).
2. Rudd has some genuinely red-hot republicans in his caucus and he must sound pro-republic when asked by the media (esp. the British media). Any vaciliating on his part and he would come under substantial internal pressure.
Pay it no heed.
I don't think that Clark or indeed the NZ Labour party NZ is in essence republican, rather they are anti-British. I suspect that despite their oft repeated refrains about New Zealand's 'independance', they still harbour a deep-seated colonial cringe. As such they rail against anything which might be associated with what they percieve to be their "betters", in much the same manner as bullies pick on others to hide their own insecurities.
ReplyDeleteMac
A couple of things to remember with Rudd, as well as those mentioend above. Although he has talked up the republic, he has only done so when asked. He never takes the initiative on the subject. Also, his government recently declared the GG head of state*, effectively stripping the Republican movement of their only vaguely populist argument. On a vaguer note, he has left the republic debate up to the Greens in the Senate, which is as good as a kiss of death.
ReplyDeleteGoing by actions rather than rhetoric I do not think Rudd is particularly republican at all.
*Flint at norepublic.com was writing about it a week or two ago.
"...Clark or indeed the NZ Labour party NZ is in essence republican, rather they are anti-British..."
ReplyDeletePossibly the most insightful thing I have ever read on this blog! The various 'republican' types in the Old Commonwealth, the Nickle resolution, the smirking when discussing the Monarchy- all of these are more anti-British than republican. Stupid, yes? Most of us are descended from families who were British.