I would put this group into the ''I'm a Republican , but...."
category----conservatives like these would never vote to change the status
quo.
Sounds like a Young Liberals luncheon to me.
Laurie.
----------------------------
Trudy Bray wrote........
-----Original Message-----
From: Trudy Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: news-clip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, October 31, 1999 10:38 PM
Subject: The Age on Sunday: THE UNDECIDED: Distrustful, disinterested and...
"every one of them is a republican..." --- Trudy
===================================
The Age on Sunday
THE UNDECIDED: Distrustful, disinterested
and disinclined
Sunday 31 October 1999
It was a deeply reassuring experience to hear these
undecided voters exchanging views on the looming
referendum ... but then, going out into the community
and listening to the common sense of the common man
is usually reassuring, and often inspiring.
Over lunch, this group revealed themselves as patriotic,
concerned Australians whose status as undecided voters
was largely the result of uncomfortable tension between
a heart saying yes and a head saying no.
Every one of them is a republican; every one of them
believes the monarchy has outlived its usefulness and
relevance to Australia. And yet, on the basis of this discussion, you'd have
to
conclude that not one of them is likely to vote yes.
(In this, they are typical: most people who are still undecided this close
to a poll tend
to opt for maintenance of the status quo.)
The central theme of their conversation was that they feel they have been
hustled into
a vote that has all the hallmarks of being just another political con. The
process has
been rushed to an extent that makes them suspicious, the full range of
options has not
been canvassed, the campaign - on both sides - seems patronising and
superficial, and
they believe that they are being asked to make a decision they are
ill-equipped to
make.
"We're not just ordering a meal here," one of them remarked.
"This is a big question, and I hate the way they say it's just a small
step."
There was a significant sub-text here: this group believed that a switch to
a republican
form of government should be regarded as serious and significant, and they
were
unimpressed by the Australian Republican Movement's minimalist line. To
them, a
scarcely perceptible change is a change not worth making.
They even wondered whether the campaign was deliberately designed to gloss
over
the important questions.
"Imagine having a referendum like this at the beginning of November," said a
university student.
"It means no student is going to be able to study the arguments properly -
we're too
preoccupied with exams."
Confusion reigned when they tried to agree about what, precisely, the
referendum
would, or should, achieve. One was not sure if a yes vote would bind us to
the
proposed model. One feared a no vote might consign the whole question to
oblivion.
There was lively but inconclusive discussion about the role of a president,
but a
strong view that no powers should be given to presidents, or to prime
ministers,
unless we were prepared for those powers to be exercised in an emergency.
At the same time, one member of the group conceded that "we're not even
equipped
to debate the present role of the governor-general because we don't really
know what
his role is".
As far as this group is concerned, the whole thing has been too quick, too
slick and
too heavily influenced by the artificial deadline of the centenary of
Federation: "Why
do we have to have it settled by 2001? It wouldn't matter if it took five
years. I saw
on television that it took 14 years of debate to get federation settled."
Whereas some of the campaign propaganda has suggested that a yes vote would
keep
the issue alive and pave the way for further refinement of the republican
model, this
group held the opposite view: with only one tentative dissenter, they
believed that a
yes vote would be the end of the matter: "There's no way they are going to
fiddle
with it once they've got their model through."
By contrast, they saw a no vote as almost guaranteeing that the issue would
develop
new life, once the dust of the referendum had settled.
"If we vote no, that won't be the last we'll see of it. Peter Reith is
urging us to vote no
so we can have another go."
This group were by no means committed to direct election, and they were
quite
prepared to laugh at the possibility that Australians would make an
inappropriate
choice: "Daryl Somers might get a new job!"
Their resistance to this referendum appears to be based on their belief that
since we
have not been given the chance to vote in a basic plebiscite about
republicanism, we
should at least be considering a number of alternative models.
As things stand, Saturday's vote seems to them to be premature, abrupt and
vaguely
disturbing: the more they discussed it, the more inclined they were to
register their
protest by voting no. (Indeed, two members of the group commented that they
wouldn't vote at all if it were not compulsory.)
They were particularly scathing about the attempts by both sides to recruit
celebrities
and sporting heroes as advocates: "We don't want to know what athletes
think. Let
them stick to swimming fast." Far from believing that politicians should
stay out of
the debate, they thought politicians were "the very people who ought to be
explaining
the pros and cons to us":
"No one's saying how this particular republic will help the country. We need
more
detail, more discussion and more time. We need more leadership and less
mud-slinging."
Prime Minister John Howard's role in the referendum is regarded as crucial.
His
position makes him the undisputed leader of the no case. He is also seen as
a wily
strategist: "John Howard's no fool. He wanted to put up a model that would
lose."
Can the yes side win back these teetering, reluctant nay-sayers? It seems
unlikely.
They've already worked out how to deal with their discomfort: "I'm a
republican, but
I don't want this republic and I object to being given no choice."
*************************************************************************
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without
permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment,
scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal
copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of
the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
