Why Should Australia Stay A Constitutional Monarchy? With Alexander Voltz | AUSPOL EXPLAINED

Welcome to my two-part interview series on Australia's monarchy v republic! In this episode I sat down with Alexander Voltz from the Australian Monarchist League, to ask him what the arguments are for Australia to maintain its system of constitutional monarchy and reject the possibility of becoming a republic.
Of course to hear the other side of this discussion I encourage you to watch my interview with Esther Anatolitis of the Australian Republic Movement: • Why Should Australia S...
Learn more about the AML here: www.monarchist...
Learn more about the ARM here: republic.org.au/
Support the channel on patreon here: / auspolexplained
Like Auspol Explained on Facebook: / auspol-explained-10789...
Auspol Explained would like to acknowledge the Whadjuk Nyoongar people and their Elders as the owners and custodians of the Land that the episode was recorded and edited on. This Land was stolen and never ceded. It always was and always will be Aboriginal Land.

[@irasponsibly]

05:10 "I don't need to make that claim, because history shows it" No, that's making a claim, and saying "this is my evidence", but it's still making a claim!

[@therealsunnyk]

Yeah mini Scomo gets pretty grating even by halfway. He just says "ludicrous" and "ridiculous" a lot without making any real arguments.

[@stuntdogs]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but this is exactly what I assumed a monarchist would look and sound like.

[@dmravi13]

I was about to say!

[@Aysthete]

"The most successful countries in the commonwealth, I think I am right to say this, are Canada, New Zealand and Australia." So the Settler Colonial countries as opposed to the colonised countries? And they're doing better than the colonial countries? WHAT A SURPRISE!

[@spartanworrior4519]

Also, the idea that countries with monarchies are better economically is true but flawed. This is because of the Western European countries which did a tiny bit of imperialism on the world

[@aguy6771]

Malaysia and Brunei are also highly successful, are these run by "le evil white ppl" no. are they monarchies? yes.

[@peterpanda5069]

Other than the critiques of republics that are equally applicable to monarchies and the innuendo about ex-Commonwealth states, thete is a _lot_ of talk about god and domination in this, which makes it seem like an aesthetic preference for certain forms of hierarchy

[@sowietdoge6259]

Just finished watching. I think the arguments Voltz offers for the support of a constitutional monarchy are very flawed and cherry-picked, but I appreciated hearing his perspective and had a good time listening, even if I don’t agree. Thanks Auspol Explained!

[@timkim1234]

“I do not want the British royal family to lose the last biggest country in the Commonwealth to keep the Union Jack flag” -Sydney, Australia

[@blastoiseddr]

I really enjoyed this interview style (does it have a name??). Interesting arguments.

[@davidroddini1512]

After hearing both sides I would like to suggest a compromise. Abandon the *British* monarchy. Instead, every year that ends in a 9 Australia elects a monarch who has all the power of Australia’s constitutional monarch. In the event that the monarch passes before a new one can be elected, Parliament by majority consent selects a Governor General to finish the monarch’s 10 year term. An elected monarch or an appointed Governor General cannot be removed prior to the next monarchical election. This gives the stability of the monarchy while still maintaining a head of state chosen by the people in republican fashion.

[@fyshi6226]

Elective monarchies in history have typically worked out really well for the people in those countries, however we kinda already have one with our current system, its just our GG isnt a monarch

[@hayleyemma7953]

Thank you for these videos! Ive been neutral on this topic for Australia through passiveness. Ill be watching both videos to gain insights from these SMEs to help formulate my own opinion. I appreciate how you present information and try and provide a multifaceted view of information.

[@mirabeaux851]

10:24 , 12:34 I find this to be just patently proven be long wrong. We have seen many instances in which monarch comes into direct conflict with the elected government, often losing, even when the monarch fights for the benefit of the country. There are also many instances where the presence of the monarch did nothing, such as Rhodesia, South Africa, and Fiji. 10:44 I don’t understand how a person of British descent and so close to British history could ever possibly hold his laughable belief. 12:34 The role of constitutional monarch did not do anything to prevent Stephen Harper in Canada still getting his way with closing down parliament in Canada. The governor general folded ultimately to his demands and public pressure, because she feared being too political. 15:59 is this guy seriously making an argument against the ability to amend constitutions? 22:14 The difference between dynasticism and Republican systems versus monarchical systems is vast. In Republican systems, dynasticism often results from the first person in the line being a notable politician of skill and prominence. And those lines typically go to two or three generations at most, whereas monarchy and its periphery go for centuries. 29:37 It’s also important to remember that non-monarchical government in the forms of democracy and republicanism also go back to this far. 34:27 this attitude from a monarchist league is quite fitting historically. It is so patronizing of its nation to the point of believing that the monarchy is the nation, and that the nation is nothing without the monarchy. A couple of very important influences on the British have been the Romans and the Greeks, peoples who were a proud and very much had identities long after their monarchies had been eliminated. 37:27 It wouldn’t be that hard to do all that. All charters can be redirected to the Australian state, as we have seen in Canada. 38:23 Or, they gain a new one. My own country certainly has and we take great pride in it. The French are extremely proud of their revolution and the ideals that their society seeks to uphold. The revolution was very much the people’s. I also find it extremely frustrating that this guy can only talk about France, but never talk about arguably the oldest republican success stories of San Marino and the United States. This guy is obsessed with France. 43:55 in the United States, we have a similar feeling, but about presidents. The reaffirmation of our community, democracy and republicanism is reaffirmed through every single peaceful election. A problem with monarchism is that a monarch and rain for vastly longer than many elected leaders, making it easy for the public to identify a monarch with “the crown”. 45:01 very convenient for him to leave out the reasons why we are a secular state. This guy is pretty clearly a Christian, so it’s very easy for him to not see an issue with having christianity is the state religion. And we have settled the answer to the unity question a long time ago. 45:31 as if this is a bad thing? It is critical four people to know their rights. And in Australia they are not constitutionally enshrined, meaning that they are left vulnerable to legislative supremacy.

[@FionaEm]

Er, how does a monarchy offer us economic protection? Keating floated the dollar 40 years ago, and we trade in a free market. Having a hereditary monarch atop our constitutional tree has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with archaic notions of bloodline privilege. The argument of objectivity and political stability is also nonsense. You only have to look at The Dismissal and the involvement of the Queen's private secretary to understand that.

[@normandiebryant6989]

As you say, our own governments and innovative businesses have been the economic boon to Australia. What economic influence has a monarch had, especially one that swears to be independent and never actually does anything here. Just look at the economic benefits the Monarchy brought to the UK during Covid and Brexit! None at all! Really, if a big feature of a Monarch is that they can't wield any power, why have them? We only have Monarchs because our forebears were too afraid to whip them off to the guillotine when we got totally sick of their tyrant forebears.

[@saimoncole]

Alexander should know that 'the Preamble' is not a preamble to our constitution but to the Act of the UK parliament that created the Commonwealth of Australia. UK monarchs have been free to marry Catholics since 2013. Thank you for this video. It's good to see you two young men with different views having a civil and educational conversation. Alexander argues well but often with half truths. I support constitutional monarchy, but I think an honest evaluation concedes that some change in our current head of state arrangements would be beneficial. I do wish people would distinguish between an Australian Head of State and a republic. It's not as though the monarch has to be British. To see more search 'equanimity Australian constitutional monarchy'

[@TheBlackDogChronicles]

What a great idea. I am not sure, so it is great to have these opposing points of view. In this recent months it has been proven to me that we must be very aware of all of the facts in terms of politics. So, I am very grateful for all the effort and the respectful idea of evenly presenting important political issues.

[@mishapurser4439]

He's conflating a transition from absolute monarchy to republic with a transition from constitutional monarchy to republic and assuming any disastrous outcomes would be similar. The difference is that a constitutional monarchy already has an established culture of liberal democracy while an absolute monarchy has an established culture of authoritarianism. He's being very sneaky there but I see right through it.

[@bugger897]

As a republican, I've never really given monarchists much time of day, so I really enjoyed the video. Seems like this guy mostly cherrypicked historical and modern examples of issues with republics and good qualities of monarchies, and spent a lot of time arguing against strawmen 🫤

[@sdpearshaped831]

The argument given can really be applied to any sort of government and all rests on the assumption of the Monarchy intervening, which they won't due to the political mess it would cause. Monarchist arguments tend to be like this in contradiction and self-defeating. I maintain it all goes back to a monarchists' weird nerdly adoration for a historical relic.

[@mirabeaux851]

Him talking about Christianity being an important dominant tradition and de facto should be because the Crown is Christian doesn’t sit right with me even if one buys until all the other stuff. It’s a very colonialist outlook, and a deeply concerning one. 43:06 And there it is again.

[@zacdambracio6411]

Australia is legally secular and multicultural, but the top job is limited to someone who isn't loyal to Australia, someone related to an incest loving family and Protestant. The majority of religious Australians with Catholicism being the largest within that group being ineligible for life. We cannot support the idea of democracy or a fair go. If we don't support the people to chose who governs all levels of our legislative arms

[@MisterFro9]

It's because monarchist are overwhelmingly white, Christian wealthy conservatives. It's a joke they think all Australians, or even a majority could have aligned values with that...

[@dontworry1302]

45:00 He's just wrong, you do find something of that literary magnitude in the US constitution. Its in the preamble, the first part of the document. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Its also a poor comparison as the US has multiple founding documents, with the one establishing the principles of the nation being the Declaration of independence, which begins with a far more profound statement than the one he mentioned.

[@Yomil]

still early, but wanted to ask before I forgot: If all that matters is a little golden hat, why not vote for a person that we want to have a go at wearing said hat?

[@Tomi-w5c]

God save The King 💜

[@salemdianne]

I find his point about Zimbabwe separating from the commonwealth being the only reason for the country’s economic collapse ignorant. In reality there were many boulders being juggled such as the corrupt leader deciding to hyper inflate, pay off their debts, pay for the Congo war, and the US and EU freezing Zimbabwe’s assets. The British monarchy did not start the wars and did not make a greedy corrupt leader.

[@mirabeaux851]

I totally agree

[@mirabeaux851]

27:58 it’s convenient for him to not mention that brutal, ugly colonialism ravaged the Earth under the crown. How well did the crown work out for stability when it came to Southern Rhodesia? How old did it work out for Kenya? It is also convenient for him to leave out the fact that the apartheid rule ratcheted up for roughly 12 years while S.A. was a monarchy. When the Queen try to use her royal powers to help save some black men in Rhodesia, the government ignored her and killed them anyways. The Queen also could have done nothing in the face of the military coup in Fiji. India also was a fire storm brewing underneath for decades, which the British state did nothing to improve. The British state was barely able to hold over control or solve anything because they had helped screw it up so badly. The British Indian state was built to subjugate and control, and that is the only stability that it valued.

[@mishapurser4439]

Is the Crown there for everyone or is it steeped in the Christian religious tradition? Not everyone is Christian, so the two are mutually exclusive.

[@vaughanjones5933]

I viewed :)

[@vaughanjones5933]

And now, at the end..., that was an excellent discussion and Voltz presented his arguments very well.

[@James-wf8nu]

This is your brain on authoritarianism 🧠

[@kenwaugh7]

Monarchy has only ever been introduced through force. And for settler colonies like Australia, that force has invariably meant subjugating the natives, that is, genocide.

[@TheHazza]

Except in Norway, but yeah in the Commonwealth Realm's case, absolutely.

[@Chrisbobduckgoodcoolbeans]

Womp womp

[@TumbleweedMK4]

Thanks for the video, it's great to have different views expressed and understood. I very much disagree with the guest though. I think it's outdated to say that there must be an inherent universal tradition and a hierarchy: not everyone wants to be ruled by YOUR religion. It is also pretty gross to claim that our morality is derived from the Ten Commandments. We're not all Christian, we don't want a theocracy, and non-believers are quite capable of being moral, thank you. You need to prove WHY we should care what your Bible has to say, before you rely on it so much in politics. You can say that politics is corrupt, and so really we have very little say in who gets elected. Well, it's better than having NO say. Commonwealths seem to do better when the monarch has less and less to do with it, so that's probably a sign. It's true to say that monarchs bring stability, but if we took that conservative view with everything, nothing would ever change and get better. Also, don't say that French military power suffered because they stopped being a monarchy. France dominated Europe for 20 years after they got rid of their king.

[@kenwaugh7]

Australia outsources its sovereignty to a foreign aristocrat based on their bloodline and breeding. What a disgusting insult for this person to claim that is all we deserve and cannot devise anything better.

[@deutschermichel5807]

dein Kommentar klingt menschenverachtend

[@Kieran-d7r2t]

We made Australian nation.

[@Chrisbobduckgoodcoolbeans]

To put it politely: you have overlooked the fact Australia itself is a foreign/British concept as Australia did not exist until the British settlers made it. We are fundamentally built for this model of government. God save the king.

[@roylestork]

Jump cuts? Made the same comment on the other video. I understand the advantages but still I wonder if there is any subtleties lost.

[@AuspolExplained]

Both interviews were over an hour. I did my best to preserve intention in the answers while cutting uhs, ums, less efficient sentences, etc. Alexander reviewed it before it went live and was happy with his answers and how they were cut down.

[@normandiebryant6989]

I don't think you could say Australia has benefitted from being a Monarchy. Lest We Forget that we were dragged into WW1, a complete massacre, to defend our monarch, King George V, against Germany's monarch, Kaiser Wilhelm II. Both were Queen Victoria's grandsons! How many deaths were caused by one cousin's aggressive jealousy of the other? The Royal Family were so embarrassed that they changed their name from Saxe Coburg Gotte to Windsor, so that people in the future might forget the connection. Notice that the monarchs or royal families on both sides didn't actually go off to fight their own battles and get shot up. They got their loyal subjects to do the dirty work to enhance their power. Fighting and scrabbling for power, wealth and privilege is what monarchs and despotic leaders do. Remember all the other European wars, the Japanese in WW2 and now Putin, a wanna-be Emperor of Russia, all monarchs or aspiring monarchs. Now we have Donald Trump who is now, in fact, a King, above all laws, supported, ironically, by Republicans. A Constitutional Monarchy is only good compared with an absolute monarchy and not as good as having a citizen of your own country with severely limited powers as part of the executive and elected Parliament. Australia needs to have some self-respect and just the apron strings of mother England.

[@avus-kw2f213]

Australia should become a semi constitutional monarchy

[@royalcello]

Brilliant points by Mr. Voltz here, particularly regarding the inevitability of dynastic power and the fallacy of assuming that republics better reward "merit." Australians should take care not to imitate the mistake made by Americans in 1776! God Save the King.

[@TheFman2010]

That is a cogent argument for constitutional monarchism. Thank you.

[@kenwaugh7]

Stability??? Ireland is part republic, part monarchy. Guess which part is more stable?

[@THEONLYDC]

Alexander made the statement that the Preamble of The Australia's Constitution highlights that we agree to unite in one indissoluble union, however it actually written as "have agreed to unite in One Indissoluble Federal Commonwealth" not union. Yes we are a political union but we are a Commonwealth because we focus on the shared good of our states and territories. That's why we are legally called The Commonwealth of Australia.

[@Kelly-wf5ie]

Federation

[@shawnbenson7696]

Putin, Kim, Pol Pot, Mao, Trump...Elizabeth, Margaret, Juan Carlos.

[@jackgurney6961]

cryptofascist nonsense

[@MrgalaxyGamer101]

I am really disappointed that you didn’t push back on any of the misleading claims or occasionally just false claims made. The guest provided some hateful, bigoted and racist language that should have been called out. Doing that doesn’t make you biased, it makes you good at your job. I hope a second video comes out to address the disservice done in this one. I’m sorry to be so critical

[@AuspolExplained]

That's ok. My job is to present information neutrally for people to critique, which you have. If I had edited it out then you wouldn't have an honest depiction of his views to judge them accordingly.

[@spartanworrior4519]

@@AuspolExplainedmy guy that’s a cop out. Accurate and truthful info is more important than neutrality