PRO-republicans are engaged in a heartless waiting game as they plot to overturn Australia’s constitutional monarchy.
Realising a vast majority of Australians retain a deep admiration for their 93-year-old Queen, republicans are counting down her demise before launching an emotion-charged assault on Australia’s constitution.
By taking this tack they hope to muddy the debate around the nation’s most important foundational document.
Their aim is to shift the conversation from one of constitutional protections and reason into an emotion-charged hysteria about the “un-likability” of Queen Elizabeth’s heirs.
If you think the Queen is nice, their argument goes, then we should remain a constitutional monarchy. But if her successor doesn’t do it for you, then we must change.
They believe time is on their side.
If pro-republicans succeed in convincing the wider population that emotions trump reason, Australia’s constitution will be unrecognisable within the decade and the country will have a US-style president and a second-tier prime minister.
Changing a constitution is always dangerous.
Regardless of all the chatter about its inadequacies, of the “urgent” changes needed to its pre-amble and that it was written by too many white men, this document has served the nation and its people extremely well.
It’s worth remembering that the constitution exists for one primary reason – to protect the Australian people from those who govern them.
Changing it is not supposed to be a feel-good issue. It’s not like altering the words of the national anthem nor re-designing the flag. Re-wording the constitution has real-life, every-day impacts on the lives of real, every-day Australians. And not necessarily good impacts.
This is why the people have rejected all but eight of the 44 constitutional changes proposed by politicians.
Most Australians, it’s often said, wouldn’t trust a politician to walk their dog.
In these crazy and divided times then, why would citizens ever allow self-serving partisans to get anywhere near a document so important to their basic rights?PC