7

For my debate, I have to argue in favour of Australia being a republic. I'm planning on one of my points being that by still being a monarchy, Australia is missing out on multiple international relations which are only for republics, like the USA. However, I'm not sure how to proceed with this. Some international relationships I think I could talk about are:

1. Free trade agreements

Currently, Australia has 10 FTAs in force. Republics like the USA and China have many more, however is it because of their republican status? Also, are there any free trade agreements that only involve republics?

2. Trade Routes Specific to Republics

Are there any goods trading between republican countries that Australia is missing out on due to the fact that they're a constitutional monarchy? I searched up on this however couldn't find anything relevant.

3. International Organisations (such as NATO or the EU) but however Specific to Republics

Are there any republic-only international organisations that Australia could benefit from being part of? Once again, my Google searches didn't come up with anything.

So, please help me with proceeding with this idea in my debate. Thank you.

  • 15
    Where did you get the idea that NATO or EU are republic-only international organisations? UK is in the news a lot for choosing to leave the EU and is not a republic. – Roy Aug 8 '18 at 12:33
  • 2
    @Roy Sorry for not being clear. I meant to say that NATO and EU were just international organisations, however I now see why I would be unclear. Sorry for the confusion. I will edit. – bio Aug 8 '18 at 12:50
  • 15
    The reason your searches failed is because your premise is false. – David Richerby Aug 8 '18 at 16:00
  • 3
    there would be no difference to Australia's position in the world by changing to a Republic. You would be better off trying to find an emotional argument instead about why we have a foreign head of state when we could choose our own – mgh42 Aug 8 '18 at 22:31
  • 1
    China is not a republic. It is a peoples republic, which is entirely different. – Jamie Clinton Aug 8 '18 at 23:35
42

Sorry, I think you are out of luck here.

NATO and EU are open to (constitutional) monarchies, for example Belgium is a member of both. The EU is restricted to democracies, and while there are no explicit requirements on government type for NATO, in practice, all members have been broadly capitalist and democratic.

Both organisations have regional requirements for membership. Australia is not eligible for membership of either as it is not "North Atlantic" nor "European".

There are no free trade organisations that are limited to Republics. I've already discussed the EU. ASEAN includes monarchies, such as Thailand. The TTP would have included many monarchies, like Japan. Trade deals may require the "rule of law" but care not about a constitutional monarch.

There are no specific sanctions placed on Australia by any countries that could be lifted by Australia becoming a Republic.

In general, other countries may care about the "rule of law" or "democracy", but not about whether the symbolic head of state is elected or is born to the job.

On the other hand, there are no associations of Monarchies that Australia is a member of. Australia could even choose to remain in the Commonwealth, as having the Queen as head of state is not a requirement. For example, India is a republic.

  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Philipp Aug 9 '18 at 12:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .