Piers Watch

In Defence of the Realm

Piers made a timely intervention into the Republic debate this week, laying out cogent reasons why the waverers should vote Yes. Of course, that wasn't our hero's intention, but like so many of Piers' efforts the damn thing backfired. We're still not convinced the old fella isn't a Resistance plant.

So what was he on about? Well, his argument was constructed around the questions of why now? and why this model?

These are the rhetorical tools that the Monarchists have constructed their case so cynically around - a combination of opportunism and dishonesty to cloak the neo-Conservatives they are into the purveyors of national commonsense.

Piers takes swipes at all his usual suspects: Keating, Whitlam, the 'faux Irish' and, of course, Malcolm Turnbull. It's vintage Ack-ing as he rails against the "rather immature clique of baby-boomer elitists which believe that national identity can only be forged through conflict and apparently still pines for the whiff of 60s patchouli-scented radicalism.

He concludes in an enigmatic fashion - suggesting that a better model could win his vote next time, with an "acceptable and less divisive model"

Like the Monarchist's crass advertising campaign "Vote No to the Politician's Republic", the Piers argument is premised on the notion that as soon as this referendum gets knocked over, preparations will begin for the real thing.

Which is exactly? A direct election to create a US-style presidency and a fundamental change in our political system?- I could really see Piers', Howard and the good ol' boys and girls at ACM giving that one the thumbs up!

But back to Piers' initial questions: why now? and why this model?

Why now? Anyone with any sense of history and symbolism would have to concede that the centenary of Federation is an appropriate time to question our current constitutional arrangements.

While there are valid criticisms that this has been of limited scope, the basic notion of changing ultimate legal power from a hereditary line of royalty from another country to an Australian is an important symbolic change.

This is where Piers and his like get lost - they're not really into symbols; they like their concepts concrete like dole-bludgers and lazy unionists.

Despite their protests, symbols are important in an age where countries compete for investment and markets in a global market. A country portrayed as confident and forward looking is ideally placed to be at the centre of these changes; one that clings to the past can easily be left behind.

This has been recognised by many of the contemporary musicians, who are at the cutting edge of this international market. They support the republic because they recognise a stronger sense of place adds value to their own product. That's why many of them are singing "Yes, It's Time".

Piers dismissal of the importance of this symbolism as being less important than the fate of the South Sydney rugby league team, betrays nothing but his own hollow heart.

The second question: why this model? is a disingenuous one for one of the PM's men to ask. The model was a product of the cumbersome Constitutional Convention process that Howard loaded with appointed Monarchists and direct electionists.

The compromise deal they struck had a number of subtlety's that have been ignored in the debate - notably Jason Li's public consultation model. More importantly ConCon's model was one of ongoing Constitutional change, with the minimalist Republic a starting point for a broader examination of government.

Direct electionists opposing the Republic seem to have ignored this; being more interested in wiping the smirks off the ARM's admittedly smug faces than securing an outcome that promotes their own objectives.

As always Piers has missed the real story. Which is why this referendum that is meant to be about whether Australia becomes a Republic has turned into a lawyer's debate about what sort of Republic we want. It was a daring move by a Prime Minister dedicated to securing the British Crown as head of state.

And by running his tired and divisive line, Piers' has played right into the PM's hands.

P.S. One of the bright note's of the campaign has been the emergence of the insufferable Sophie Panopolous as a public figure for the Monarchist cause. Should the Liberals ever tire of Bronwyn Bishop, they need look no further.

  View entire issue - print all of the articles!

  Issue 36 contents

»	Timorese Appeal to Democrats to Dump Reith�s Wave
»	Opera House Keeps New Years in the Family
»	Stressed Out: The Incredibly Shrinking Lunch Break
»	Kennett Fall a Warning to Carr
»	Combet Steps Up To The Plate
»	Thirty Hours at the Wheel - Then Sacked for Complaining
»	Reith�s Plan for Universities Exposed
»	Hockey Sticks With the Banks
»	Push to Downgrade Industrial Tribunals
»	Peace Stalks the Gong as Matters Bows Out
»	Rock the Republic - It�s Time

»	Guest Report
»	Sport
»	Trades Hall
»	Piers Watch

»	Vizard Critics Peddling Lies
»	Republic Soapbox
»	Barbies and Kens Eye High Office
»	Guilty! I Agree with Howard
»	Egan Speaks - Des Moore's No Friend of Mine!

Notice Board
- Check out the latest events

Latest Issue

View entire latest issue
- print all of the articles!

Previous Issues

Subject index

Search all issues

© 1999-2000 Labor Council of NSW

LaborNET is a resource for the labour movement provided by the Labor Council of NSW

[ Privacy Statement | Disclaimer | Credits ]

LaborNET is proudly created, designed and programmed by Social Change Online for the Labor Council of NSW