Advance English Summary

847 Words4 Pages
The piece Advance Australia … within reason, was conveyed on the 5th of January by Amy Mackintosh, at the annual “University of Students for Youth Political Activism’ meeting held at The University of Melbourne. Mackintosh steadily argues the reasons why Australia should not have become a republic, and how the country should stay as a monarchy. The tone of the speech is very colloquial and even sarcastic, with the middle part being more analytical and serious. The speaker gives the impression that the argument for Australia to stay as a Monarchy is unbiased and logical. The beginning of Amy’s speech introduces her contention that Australia staying as a Monarchy is more practical than becoming a Republic. The title is a pun in itself, playing on the widely known Australian anthem and the double meaning “within reason”, meaning that there are limitations to how much Australia should actually “advance”, also foreshadowing the reasoning behind Mackintosh’s argument. In the first paragraph of the speech, the speaker imposes questions to the audience, allowing them to think about the issue regarding politics. During the second paragraph, the author highlights the opposing point of view and gives few points supporting the argument, to let Australia become a Republic although not without the heavily sarcastic question: “Which is weird, right?”. Then Mackintosh goes against it by saying “Well, no, actually, it wouldn’t be.”. She brings the statement backwards, making spectators wonder how the speaker will turn the tables on the reasons why Australia should become a Republic. With the words, “I am no Monarchist”, Amy Mackintosh sets herself in a neutral position, with no personal bias, provoking belief from listeners. This is further elaborated when she states that she didn’t attend “the infamous Will and Kate’s wedding”. Near the end of the first paragraph, the speaker brings logic and reasoning by affirming that her opposition to the Republican movement is “far more reasoned” letting the audience listen more carefully to the subsequent points of the argument, being “financial, political [and] logical.” While listening to the three points of the arguments being stated, hearers feel as though they are taking part in
Open Document