I am a regular reader of the ABC’s Drum – a fact that probably leaves most of you cold unless you happen to recall the occasional article that I have linked here for your amusement.
Most of the time the articles are too specifically Australian to be worthy of exposure on The Chariot, but today there is a beaut inspired by the imminent arrival of Betty and Phil in Canberra this evening for a short visit which will, at last, include Brisbane, and will culminate in the opening of CHOGM in Perth in ten days time.
Strangely, the piece – entitled “Long to reign over us – God save the Republicans” – was not written by an Aussie, but by an antipodean-savvy Brit; it’s a lament for the failure of republicanism in both countries, and a damning, but amusing, indictment of the movement’s shortcomings.
Having chuckled, I decided that I needed to learn more about this bilingual Brendan O’Neill, so I did a little armchair surfing. It turns out that the gentleman is the editor of Spiked, a UK web-site vaguely similar to the Australian Punch, a source that has also been linked here to the dismay of our more restrained members.
Now, this is where the story really takes off.
On the front page of Spike, I found a review of a book by George Galloway (of all people).
Never mind George’s book, the review is, in my opinion, a must-read. Although it’s a bit hard-going and by no means short, it warms up towards the end, if you can last that long, and provides a timely and elegant counterpoint to Araminta’s extract from The Independent yesterday, and to the ensuing debate from Charioteers of varying persuasions.
The very title of the review – Let’s stand up for the 90-minute bigots – should pique your interest, but if it doesn’t, the subtitle should certainly do the trick.
Far from being a symbol of ‘deep hatreds’ in Scottish society, sectarian abuse at Celtic/ Rangers games is just footballing fun.
🙂
Boadicea's Chariot 
The world’s two greatest soccer teams don’t even bother to play outside their own country, they have no wish to put those who call themselves “the best” to shame 🙂
The rest of the world’s “soccer talk” is just a diversion so the world don’t realize what great games they been missing out on … when these two teams play against each other, even for practice , millions watch, hundreds commit suicide over the game’s outcome and crowds go wild in the streets …
Every single weekend 🙂
What struck me about O’Neill’s piece was how slavishly he adhered to the cult of republicanism, that republicans is inherently freer than a monarchy, that it is inherently superior. Cuba, Burma, North Korea, China, and Belarus are all republics and none of them are free by any standard. Japan, the Netherlands, Canada, and Norway all have monarchies and all are free countries. The monarchy in Cambodia has also helped it come a great distance in healing after Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, another republican organisation. Yet, Iceland, Taiwan, Brazil, and Chile are all successful and free republics. Nepal, before the Maoists took over, had an utterly useless monarch. Thailand has a monarchy which is above reproach, lest on wishes to receive severe punishment.
Republicanism is simply not inherently superior or freer to a constitutional monarchy. France is no freer than the UK, nor is the USA better off that Canada because of its head of state. Nor do the two countries save any money on not having a monarch. The cost of keeping up the US and French presidents is beyond belief, especially considering how useless they tend to be. I’ve honestly not heard one convincing argument that a republic is superior to a monarchy, only a repetition of the same clichés which have come out of the USA and France for the past two hundred years.
Penarol and National … the first to win the world cup and still the best today, there is no team like them. They are from Uruguay but whenever either team plays in Argentina they draw more crowds than the populations of many small nations 🙂
To be serious though … of course Republics are not superior … they were all formed after civil strife including civil wars; and most of their populations still harbour resentment towards each other.
So it’s not that the monarchy is any better, it is just that unlike Republics the monarchy’s civil troubles ended long enough ago for the people to forget all those bad feelings towards each other.
Republics are good as they give true freedom to the individual, unlike monarchies in which individual are made to believe they are free while enslaved to a system that cares only for a few…
unfortunately it is too early in the game yet for republics to improve much further.. entire generations who still remember the old troubles have to die off first.
Christopher – Couldn’t disagree with a word you’ve written, but please remember that the Australian search for an end to rule by an absentee monarch is merely that: a desire for full and final independence, to stand on our own two feet. Australia doesn’t want to change anything else about a successful system, it just wants a local, Strine speaking, true blue ocker in the job. 😀
Like Donald, for example.
Vote Donald .. for first Australian Presidente ..
Election platform (major policies)
new language .. Spanish ..
new way of life .. Revolution …
new system of education …. surfing …
economy … who cares! 🙂
Donald
All political systems are run for the few… and ignore the majority.
Hmmmm! The Carbon Tax appears to prove your point 😦
But that was a “Red Headed Welsh Girl” … so we have an excuse 🙂
But George Galloway’s from Dundee, Bearsy. Just because he had Glasgow constituencies doesn’t mean he knows anything about Glasgow. In fact his whole life has been spent showing how little he knows about anything except self-interest.
Christopher – very well put. There is nothing inherently superior about a republic, and as you say the cost of protecting a head of state is enormous whatever the system.
Och – and other Pictish exclamations!
Doesn’t anybody ever read what I actually write?
It isn’t about Galloway, Sheona, it’s about Kevin Rooney’s (the reviewer) analysis. 🙄
Donald: let’s make it Portuguese, not Castillian. I’m plotting with a Brazilian friend to make the other half of South America catch up with Brazil.
As for you comment about people being made to pretend that they’re free… Obama, after losing control of the lower house of Congress, has begun ruling increasingly by fiat and regulation. That’s hardly “free”.
Mr Bear: I am convinced that Australia will retain its monarchy for some time to come. Not because of lingering ties to the UK, those would remain regardless, but because Australia’s politicians are complete thickos who would try to make any sort of republic favour themselves.
Mr Bear: the power of the monarch in Australia is exercised by the governor general, an Australian appointed by the Australian government, anyway. Technically, the de facto head of state is Australian anyway.
Actually Christopher, I am not against the monarchical system, but as I’ve always said, a tin hat strung on a chair can do exactly the same job of sitting pretty as any King or Queen.
Regardless, I am not against Crown Law, only against paying money and giving honour to someone who is hardly ever here, never does a thing for us and wouldn’t sent her armies to help us … no matter what.
The fall of Singapore and the running home of the British Navy during WW2 is a point in fact, had it not being for the Americans we Australians might be speaking Japanese by now, and not even a “Sorry, we have to leave” ……….. and this is something not many wish to hear but that treacherous abandonment is what originally started the Australian dislike for all crowns because incredibly …..while Singapore was falling…..The British had the Gull to instruct Australians to man the fort while they made their final escape, even then; the British trained Australian General …..escaped and left his men behind..
It was Gallipoli all over again … It is also the reason for the ANZUS treaty and why Britain was never invited to join us.
And believe it or not … I once swore allegiance to her and joined one of her armies, many years later, after my discharge, I sent her a letter removing that allegiance and swearing that never again would I obey someone whose only aim is for her family to continue ruling over millions of people and doing absolutely nothing else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Bennett_%28general%29
Meu patinho: I’m actually familiar with that event. Robert Menzies, despite his longevity, was a WWII disaster. It’s a good thing that the Labor PM during the war called in the USA. It was worse that Gallipoli, I would say, however. During WWI Australia was not as threatened.
The point is, Bearsy, that Gorgeous George being what he is, Kevin shouldn’t have wasted his time reviewing it.
Best title for a blog ever, Bearsy. Well the first bit was anyway. 🙂
Agree 100% with Sheona. Galloway is the high priest of the useful idiots. As for Rooney the reviewer he is correct in most of what he says. Sectarianism is a dying art in Glasgow with only a minority looking for trouble. The Neil Lennon incidents are nothing to do with anti-catholicism and more a response to the arrogance of the man. Galloway makes no mention of the inflammatory gestures Lennon directs toward Rangers fans. Martin O’Neill, another catholic who was manager of them, was respected by the majority of the Rangers support and had no bombs sent to him or anything like that. In the article Rooney fails to address David Murray, ex-owner of Rangers correctly. He should have written: Sir David Murray.
Donald,
You’re Uruguayan duo are quite successful. Unfortunately, not as successful as my two favourite teams. 🙂
Total Number of National Championships won.
1. Rangers FC [Scotland] 54
2. Linfield FC [N. Ireland] 50
3. Peñarol [Uruguay] 48
4. Nacional [Uruguay] 43
Many thanks JW – your comment makes it all worthwhile. 🙂
Christopher
Your #13 – yes, I and 22 million other Aussies are well aware of that fact, but it doesn’t convince 10 million or so of us. About 21 million don’t like Quentin much either, which doesn’t help. 😦
Your #12 – Exactly! 🙂
No comparison, Rangers and Linfield are in a “lower” league, play against players of much lesser caliber and do not get shot at while scoring goals … nor are their lives or those of their families threatened should they lose (or sometimes WIN) 😦
South American soccer is much more interesting 🙂