Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
If the existing government was extremely unpopular and the other party likely to win the next election, the monarchy ... or its representative ... might dismiss a government without a vote of no confidence. The Governor-General of Australia did just that, at what is widely believed in lefty circles in Australia to be at the urging of Washington via the CIA, in the 1970's.

This, of course, made it a much greater likelihood that Australia will become a Republic if Charles succeeds Queen Elizabeth to the thrown. Their problem is finding a way to pick a President who would have even less power than the Governor-General, which is a tricky thing, but if the current monarch is sufficiently unpopular, they'll work something out.

Not as long as QEII is on the throne, of course, since she's a good sheila and not at all stuck up.

So the question would be, ambitious for what? Ambitious for power in the short term and the long term abolition of the monarchy in their country?


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Jun 6th, 2009 at 12:08:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

DoDo 4

Display:

Occasional Series