Name one thing that will make life better personally (compared to now) in some way for you personally if we become a republic, and I'll vote for one. Something that will make YOUR life better, or a new freedom. Note: an Australian head of state is not an applicable answer as we already pretty much have one called the Prime Minister.

it does mean we could always have a Muslim head of State...in the future...something to look forward too.

Nothing.  An expensive and unnecessary move.   Just think of the sheer cost of changing and renaming capabilities (all those "HMAS" for a start)   As we move through the decades, we are slowly moving away from the ties to Britain anyway, it will just naturally die off - let it just slowly go away and rethink when we have no more better things to do with taxpayer's money

Vic wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:08am:

Nothing.  An expensive and unnecessary move.   Just think of the sheer cost of changing and renaming capabilities (all those "HMAS" for a start)   As we move through the decades, we are slowly moving away from the ties to Britain anyway, it will just naturally die off - let it just slowly go away and rethink when we have no more better things to do with taxpayer's money

(all those "HMAS" for a start)

Fixed. Our navy could have ships called ASS

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:02am:

Name one thing that will make life better personally (compared to now) in some way for you personally if we become a republic, and I'll vote for one. Something that will make YOUR life better, or a new freedom. Note: an Australian head of state is not an applicable answer as we already pretty much have one called the Prime Minister.

There is no benefit for anyone, some socialists will temporarily feel good about themselves, but that will soon pass and they will move onto the next dramatic issue affecting their tedious little lives.

I can just imagine the nasty lowlifes that the various pollies deem fit to be our head of state.

No-one really cares any-more, jeez not even turnbull can manage a fccckk to give these days and he used to be in charge of the ARM. ;D

this topic always comes up when the govt is struggling....it seems to me to be a diversion...

or is that the cynic in me? ::) ::)

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:15am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:02am: Name one thing that will make life better personally (compared to now) in some way for you personally if we become a republic, and I'll vote for one. Something that will make YOUR life better, or a new freedom. Note: an Australian head of state is not an applicable answer as we already pretty much have one called the Prime Minister. There is no benefit for anyone, some socialists will temporarily feel good about themselves, but that will soon pass and they will move onto the next dramatic issue affecting their tedious little lives. I can just imagine the nasty lowlifes that the various pollies deem fit to be our head of state. No-one really cares any-more, jeez not even turnbull can manage a fccckk to give these days and he used to be in charge of the ARM. ;D

Personally, I think it's more for the anti-colonialists and the Indigenous population. The stupid thing is that this is part of our history (for better or worse) and NOTHING can change that. All we can do is say it will never happen again and move on. I saw an article in my local paper this morning that the ALC-NSW wants self-determination rights for Aborigines. I'll vote for that on one condition. If he and other Aborigines are so keen on living completely separately from the rest of Australia, then they can live without government welfare benefits that my hard-earned tax dollars go toward. After all, if you're not part of mainstream Australia, you don't have the right to access the same services as the rest of us anymore.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:15am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:02am: Name one thing that will make life better personally (compared to now) in some way for you personally if we become a republic, and I'll vote for one. Something that will make YOUR life better, or a new freedom. Note: an Australian head of state is not an applicable answer as we already pretty much have one called the Prime Minister. There is no benefit for anyone, some socialists will temporarily feel good about themselves, but that will soon pass and they will move onto the next dramatic issue affecting their tedious little lives. I can just imagine the nasty lowlifes that the various pollies deem fit to be our head of state. No-one really cares any-more, jeez not even turnbull can manage a fccckk to give these days and he used to be in charge of the ARM. ;D

not even Turnbull can manage a fccckk to give these days and he used to be in charge of the ARM.


Turnbull killed the Republic debate because his bullying pig headedness caused a split in the pro republic vote.

Turnpike bullied his model through and half of the republicans refused to support it.

cods wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:15am:

this topic always comes up when the govt is struggling....it seems to me to be a diversion... or is that the cynic in me? ::) ::)

No not a cynic - Seems about right most of the time it is a diversion.

It also gets a run on Australia day because the Republicans think it their duty to raise their heads on the day.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:02am:

Name one thing that will make life better personally (compared to now) in some way for you personally if we become a republic, and I'll vote for one. Something that will make YOUR life better, or a new freedom. Note: an Australian head of state is not an applicable answer as we already pretty much have one called the Prime Minister.

Incorrect.

1) We will do it before those *u*king Kiwis do it

Dnarever wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 8:02am:

cods wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:15am: this topic always comes up when the govt is struggling....it seems to me to be a diversion... or is that the cynic in me? ::) ::) No seems about right most of the time. It also gets a run on Australia day because the Republicans think it their duty to raise their heads on the day.

oh of course its that day again...

funny its the flag as well... and from what I can see most are against change....that will be a smack in the face for some wont it?>...

I cant think of any reason any change will make the slightest difference to every day life....perhaps if those who want it so badly stop trying to convince us..IT WILL in fact change us....who knows people might say... WHY NOT...ITS TIME...

I think we should wait until Queeny has departed then talk about it.

miketrees wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 8:05am:

1) We will do it before those *u*king Kiwis do it

really you worry about the Kiwis...how odd... ::) ::)

I always say if it aint broke why fix it..leave well alone.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 8:04am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:02am: Name one thing that will make life better personally (compared to now) in some way for you personally if we become a republic, and I'll vote for one. Something that will make YOUR life better, or a new freedom. Note: an Australian head of state is not an applicable answer as we already pretty much have one called the Prime Minister. Incorrect.

Technically, the Queen is our head of state. But in reality she has zero impact on our country or its political process other than ceremonial duties (e.g. when a new G-G is confirmed). In reality, the PM is effectively our head of state.

Name one thing that makes your life better living under a monarchy of another country?
I am a republican but I don't care that much about it either way.
I care more that we have the Union Jack on our flag.
Even the kiwis are smart enough to adopt a flag for the twenty first century instead on one created by a competition from a weetbix pack.
I think the sad thing is monarchists can not think of good reasons to stay a constitutional monarchy other than the old " doh we will have to change all the money" we will do that when the queen carks it anyway otherwise our coins would still have Queen Victoria on them. ::)
What is wrong with a county " feeling good" about itself as a reason for change?
As I said while I am a republican as is the new Australian of the year btw, I don't like the previous models put forward. So I voted no last time we had a vote on the issue as I will next time unless we have a model that is not based on the politicians telling us who the best person for the job is.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 8:33am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 8:04am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:02am: Name one thing that will make life better personally (compared to now) in some way for you personally if we become a republic, and I'll vote for one. Something that will make YOUR life better, or a new freedom. Note: an Australian head of state is not an applicable answer as we already pretty much have one called the Prime Minister. Incorrect. Technically, the Queen is our head of state. But in reality she has zero impact on our country or its political process other than ceremonial duties (e.g. when a new G-G is confirmed). In reality, the PM is effectively our head of state.

Absolutely wrong. The GG is the head of state in the queens absence. The PM is only the head of government and can be dumped by the GG as that maggot Kerr proved.

:D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 8:33am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 8:04am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 7:02am: Name one thing that will make life better personally (compared to now) in some way for you personally if we become a republic, and I'll vote for one. Something that will make YOUR life better, or a new freedom. Note: an Australian head of state is not an applicable answer as we already pretty much have one called the Prime Minister. Incorrect. Technically, the Queen is our head of state. But in reality she has zero impact on our country or its political process other than ceremonial duties (e.g. when a new G-G is confirmed). In reality, the PM is effectively our head of state.

Which section is that in?

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution

skippy. wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:01am:

What is wrong with a county " feeling good" about itself as a reason for change?

If you just want to feel good, buy a friggen puppy, it will cost the rest of us nothing.


Where there is no benefit for the rest of us who have to pay for all of this wankery, then it is not up to us to justify the status quo.


Look no-one gives a a sh1t about this any-more, time to move on.

Well we've got the right bloke nearly in the Lodge to get it through, if he's still interested. From what I read he might be bored with the issue.

He might have to disappear a lot of his backbench to do it though.

Why do we have the flag of another country in the corner of ours that didn't want us anyway? They kicked us out and sent us here to perish.
Besides, the white fellas that founded this country were not just English, the Scots and the Irish in particular were among them and they hated England and what that Union Jack stood for. Scotland and Ireland don't have a Union Jack on their flags they are obviously more grown up than us.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:14am:

skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:01am: What is wrong with a county " feeling good" about itself as a reason for change? If you just want to feel good, buy a friggen puppy, it will cost the rest of us nothing. Where there is no benefit for the rest of us who have to pay for all of this wankery, then it is not up to us to justify the status quo. Look no-one gives a a sh1t about this any-more, time to move on.

What costs?  The head of state would live where the GG lives.No cost. Plus we wouldn't have to foot the bill every time a pommy Royal comes here to bludge off us.
The costs would be minimal at best. At least come up with valid opposition. Arguments like changing the coins are pointless given we do that every time a monarch carks It anyway.

skippy. wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:01am:

Name one thing that makes your life better living under a monarchy of another country? I am a republican but I don't care that much about it either way. I care more that we have the Union Jack on our flag. Even the kiwis are smart enough to adopt a flag for the twenty first century instead on one created by a competition from a weetbix pack. I think the sad thing is monarchists can not think of good reasons to stay a constitutional monarchy other than the old " doh we will have to change all the money" we will do that when the queen carks it anyway otherwise our coins would still have Queen Victoria on them. ::) What is wrong with a county " feeling good" about itself as a reason for change? As I said while I am a republican as is the new Australian of the year btw, I don't like the previous models put forward. So I voted no last time we had a vote on the issue as I will next time unless we have a model that is not based on the politicians telling us who the best person for the job is.

How does having the Union Jack on the flag affect you? Does it make bread more expensive for you? Do you get persecuted if you go somewhere because of it? Does it leave you curled up like a baby sucking your thumb when you think about it?

skippy. wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:19am:

Why do we have the flag of another country in the corner of ours that didn't want us anyway? They kicked us out and sent us here to perish. Besides, the white fellas that founded this country were not just English, the Scots and the Irish in particular were among them and they hated England and what that Union Jack stood for. Scotland and Ireland don't have a Union Jack on their flags they are obviously more grown up than us.

Jeez, skip, you should have wiki'd that flag before you posted this rant.

The union jack (United Kingdom) is made up of three flags.

Cross of St Andrew (Scotland)
Cross of St Patrick (Ireland)
Cross of St George (England)

10 minutes is all it takes.

What cultural values do we instil in our kids when we don't even have an identity of our own ?

skippy. wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:24am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:14am: skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:01am: What is wrong with a county " feeling good" about itself as a reason for change? If you just want to feel good, buy a friggen puppy, it will cost the rest of us nothing. Where there is no benefit for the rest of us who have to pay for all of this wankery, then it is not up to us to justify the status quo. Look no-one gives a a sh1t about this any-more, time to move on. What costs?  The head of state would live where the GG lives.No cost. Plus we wouldn't have to foot the bill every time a pommy Royal comes here to bludge off us. The costs would be minimal at best. At least come up with valid opposition. Arguments like changing the coins are pointless given we do that every time a monarch carks It anyway.

Just buy a puppy and let the rest of us be naturally happy with out the cost of this wankery.


Change for the sake of change is always fraught with folly.



Define and explain the benefit of change, conduct a cost analysis, BEFORE, demanding we change the entire structure of our system of government.


Making you feel good about yourself, isn't a benefit worthy of change.

What cultural values do we instil in our kids when we force every passing fad or cause of the permanently disillusioned Left down their throats?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:27am:

skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:01am: Name one thing that makes your life better living under a monarchy of another country? I am a republican but I don't care that much about it either way. I care more that we have the Union Jack on our flag. Even the kiwis are smart enough to adopt a flag for the twenty first century instead on one created by a competition from a weetbix pack. I think the sad thing is monarchists can not think of good reasons to stay a constitutional monarchy other than the old " doh we will have to change all the money" we will do that when the queen carks it anyway otherwise our coins would still have Queen Victoria on them. ::) What is wrong with a county " feeling good" about itself as a reason for change? As I said while I am a republican as is the new Australian of the year btw, I don't like the previous models put forward. So I voted no last time we had a vote on the issue as I will next time unless we have a model that is not based on the politicians telling us who the best person for the job is. How does having the Union Jack on the flag affect you? Does it make bread more expensive for you? Do you get persecuted if you go somewhere because of it? Does it leave you curled up like a baby sucking your thumb when you think about it?

It doesn't represent current Australia or its past given many white settlers were not English and the ones that were were not wanted by England anyway they were sent here never to return.
Argue away, its your right, but at least forge a decent argument the old curtains will fade trick doesn't cut it. ::)

cods wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:06am:

it does mean we could always have a Muslim head of State...in the future...something to look forward too.

A Catholic one, even!

cods wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:06am:

it does mean we could always have a Muslim head of State...in the future...something to look forward too.

Completely irrelevant.

And, http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/to-too-two/

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:37am:

What cultural values do we instil in our kids when we force every passing fad or cause of the permanently disillusioned Left down their throats?

You cant answer it can you ?

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:35am:

skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:24am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:14am: skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:01am: What is wrong with a county " feeling good" about itself as a reason for change? If you just want to feel good, buy a friggen puppy, it will cost the rest of us nothing. Where there is no benefit for the rest of us who have to pay for all of this wankery, then it is not up to us to justify the status quo. Look no-one gives a a sh1t about this any-more, time to move on. What costs?  The head of state would live where the GG lives.No cost. Plus we wouldn't have to foot the bill every time a pommy Royal comes here to bludge off us. The costs would be minimal at best. At least come up with valid opposition. Arguments like changing the coins are pointless given we do that every time a monarch carks It anyway. Just buy a puppy and let the rest of us be naturally happy with out the cost of this wankery. Change for the sake of change is always fraught with folly. Define and explain the benefit of change, conduct a cost analysis, BEFORE, demanding we change the entire structure of our system of government. Making you feel good about yourself, isn't a benefit worthy of change.

I see you only have rhetoric and no argument, I accept your surrender.

skippy. wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:40am:

I see you only have rhetoric and no argument, I accept your surrender.

You haven't presented anything to argue against and if your knowledge of this subject is as extensive as you knowledge of the union jack, then I won't be expecting much of one either.

I don't need to present an argument for the status quo, you however, need to present a valid argument for change. Start with what are the benefits and what are the costs for those benefits.

It's ok, I asked the ARM the same question back in the day, they had nothing either. Their major problem is not being able to tell the difference between what is a benefit to the country and what was a feature of a republic.


My argument is and always will be if there is no solid benefit for change then this is no need for change. (Read and comprehend before replying and looking stupid)

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:28am:

skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:19am: Why do we have the flag of another country in the corner of ours that didn't want us anyway? They kicked us out and sent us here to perish. Besides, the white fellas that founded this country were not just English, the Scots and the Irish in particular were among them and they hated England and what that Union Jack stood for. Scotland and Ireland don't have a Union Jack on their flags they are obviously more grown up than us. Jeez, skip, you should have wiki'd that flag before you posted this rant. The union jack (United Kingdom) is made up of three flags. Cross of St Andrew (Scotland) Cross of St Patrick (Ireland) Cross of St George (England) 10 minutes is all it takes.

When you read my post for the first time you will note I said the Scot flag nor the Irish flag carry the Union Jack. You should wiki it. ;D
while the Union Jack is supposed to be a mix of those other flags it is nothing like them, the Irish flag is green white and orange blocks and the Scots flag is more like the southern cross without the stars more than anything else. Which brings me to a more appropriate flag for this country. The southern cross was a flag used by Irish, Scots and even English rebels against the system that sent them or their forbears here as convicts, it also included other nationalities and would be a good starting point to consider for a new flag.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:48am:

My argument is and always will be if there is no solid benefit for change ...

Who determined that it should be measured by "solid benefit"?

I mean, that's merely your subjective opinion; it hardly constitutes an argument.

Its time wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:40am:

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:37am: What cultural values do we instil in our kids when we force every passing fad or cause of the permanently disillusioned Left down their throats? You cant answer it can you ?

My question or yours.
I'll answer mine. False cultural values that erode their humanity and give them no basis for success or happiness in life.

PS why can't you use your real identity instead of one nobody knows?

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:48am:

skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:40am: I see you only have rhetoric and no argument, I accept your surrender. You haven't presented anything to argue against and if your knowledge of this subject is as extensive as you knowledge of the union jack, then I won't be expecting much of one either. I don't need to present an argument for the status quo, you however, need to present a valid argument for change. Start with what are the benefits and what are the costs for those benefits. It's ok, I asked the ARM the same question back in the day, they had nothing either. Their major problem is not being able to tell the difference between what is a benefit to the country and what was a feature of a republic. My argument is and always will be if there is no solid benefit for change then this is no need for change. (Read and comprehend before replying and looking stupid)

No need for me to look stupid you've done enough of that for both of us.
The fact you can't provide valid reasons not to let go of the apron strings of a country that never wanted the people it sent here in the first place is reason enough to understand you have no argument. Again, I accept your surrender . 8-)
The funny thing is I'm not even a staunch republican and would not even vote for the last option put to us, imagine if you had to argue against someone with a passion for the subject?  ;D ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:52am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:48am: My argument is and always will be if there is no solid benefit for change ... Who determined that it should be measured by "solid benefit"? I mean, that's merely your subjective opinion; it hardly constitutes an argument.

A solid benefit is one that not only I agree is worthwhile, but even yourself can recognise its worthiness; it can be measured, costed and found to be worthwhile to the country.


What hardly constitutes an argument is one that requires changing an entire system of government so a few socialists can feel good about themselves.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:58am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:52am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:48am: My argument is and always will be if there is no solid benefit for change ... Who determined that it should be measured by "solid benefit"? I mean, that's merely your subjective opinion; it hardly constitutes an argument. A solid benefit is one that not only I agree is worthwhile, but even yourself can recognise its worthiness; it can be measured, costed and found to be worthwhile to the country.

Yes, but who said that that was what a Republic has to be measured by?  Nobody - just you.

You're basing your argument on a false (subjective) premise.

skippy. wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:51am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:28am: skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:19am: Why do we have the flag of another country in the corner of ours that didn't want us anyway? They kicked us out and sent us here to perish. Besides, the white fellas that founded this country were not just English, the Scots and the Irish in particular were among them and they hated England and what that Union Jack stood for. Scotland and Ireland don't have a Union Jack on their flags they are obviously more grown up than us. Jeez, skip, you should have wiki'd that flag before you posted this rant. The union jack (United Kingdom) is made up of three flags. Cross of St Andrew (Scotland) Cross of St Patrick (Ireland) Cross of St George (England) 10 minutes is all it takes. When you read my post for the first time you will note I said the Scot flag nor the Irish flag carry the Union Jack. You should wiki it. ;D while the Union Jack is supposed to be a mix of those other flags it is nothing like them, the Irish flag is green white and orange blocks and the Scots flag is more like the southern cross without the stars more than anything else. Which brings me to a more appropriate flag for this country. The southern cross was a flag used by Irish, Scots and even English rebels against the system that sent them or their forbears here as convicts, it also included other nationalities and would be a good starting point to consider for a new flag.

They don't carry the union jack because they are the union jack you dolt. Good to see that you have recognised that the republic of ireland is not the same country as ireland and has a different flag.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:01am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:58am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:52am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:48am: My argument is and always will be if there is no solid benefit for change ... Who determined that it should be measured by "solid benefit"? I mean, that's merely your subjective opinion; it hardly constitutes an argument. A solid benefit is one that not only I agree is worthwhile, but even yourself can recognise its worthiness; it can be measured, costed and found to be worthwhile to the country. Yes, but who said that that was what a Republic has to be measured by?  Nobody - just you. You're basing your argument on a false (subjective) premise.

I thought it would be a good idea that before changing ones entire system of government, it should have some sort of benefit for that country, yep I would be the only person who ever thought that was a smart move.

Carrying out an expensive pointless exercise for no valid reason, would be a bad idea, how silly of me.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:03am:

skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:51am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:28am: skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:19am: Why do we have the flag of another country in the corner of ours that didn't want us anyway? They kicked us out and sent us here to perish. Besides, the white fellas that founded this country were not just English, the Scots and the Irish in particular were among them and they hated England and what that Union Jack stood for. Scotland and Ireland don't have a Union Jack on their flags they are obviously more grown up than us. Jeez, skip, you should have wiki'd that flag before you posted this rant. The union jack (United Kingdom) is made up of three flags. Cross of St Andrew (Scotland) Cross of St Patrick (Ireland) Cross of St George (England) 10 minutes is all it takes. When you read my post for the first time you will note I said the Scot flag nor the Irish flag carry the Union Jack. You should wiki it. ;D while the Union Jack is supposed to be a mix of those other flags it is nothing like them, the Irish flag is green white and orange blocks and the Scots flag is more like the southern cross without the stars more than anything else. Which brings me to a more appropriate flag for this country. The southern cross was a flag used by Irish, Scots and even English rebels against the system that sent them or their forbears here as convicts, it also included other nationalities and would be a good starting point to consider for a new flag. They don't carry the union jack because they are the union jack you dolt. Good to see that you have recognised that the republic of ireland is not the same country as ireland and has a different flag. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Thanks for the mindless abuse, I expect that from the mindless that can not forge an argument.
Get back to me when you come up with a valid reason to keep the status quo, though I won't hold my breath you have never proven yourself to much of a thinker.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:07am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:01am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:58am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:52am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:48am: My argument is and always will be if there is no solid benefit for change ... Who determined that it should be measured by "solid benefit"? I mean, that's merely your subjective opinion; it hardly constitutes an argument. A solid benefit is one that not only I agree is worthwhile, but even yourself can recognise its worthiness; it can be measured, costed and found to be worthwhile to the country. Yes, but who said that that was what a Republic has to be measured by?  Nobody - just you. You're basing your argument on a false (subjective) premise. I thought it would be a good idea that before changing ones entire system of government, it should have some sort of benefit for that country, yep I would be the only person who ever thought that was a smart move. Carrying out an expensive pointless exercise for no valid reason, would be a bad idea, how silly of me.

The point is, your premise is merely a subjective opinion.

Yes, it may be shared by others but it isn't a universally accepted "truth".

By manufacturing your own premise, you've ensured that your argument is valid.

It doesn't work that way.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:52am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:48am: My argument is and always will be if there is no solid benefit for change ... Who determined that it should be measured by "solid benefit"? I mean, that's merely your subjective opinion; it hardly constitutes an argument.

People don't tend to just do things for no reason ?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:11am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:52am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:48am: My argument is and always will be if there is no solid benefit for change ... Who determined that it should be measured by "solid benefit"? I mean, that's merely your subjective opinion; it hardly constitutes an argument. People don't tend to just do things for no reason ?

Agreed.

But who determines what constitutes a "valid reason"?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:10am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:07am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:01am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:58am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:52am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:48am: My argument is and always will be if there is no solid benefit for change ... Who determined that it should be measured by "solid benefit"? I mean, that's merely your subjective opinion; it hardly constitutes an argument. A solid benefit is one that not only I agree is worthwhile, but even yourself can recognise its worthiness; it can be measured, costed and found to be worthwhile to the country. Yes, but who said that that was what a Republic has to be measured by?  Nobody - just you. You're basing your argument on a false (subjective) premise. I thought it would be a good idea that before changing ones entire system of government, it should have some sort of benefit for that country, yep I would be the only person who ever thought that was a smart move. Carrying out an expensive pointless exercise for no valid reason, would be a bad idea, how silly of me. The point is, your premise is merely a subjective opinion. Yes, it may be shared by others but it isn't a universally accepted "truth". By manufacturing your own premise, you've ensured that your argument is valid. It doesn't work that way.

Would it be better that I use the republican argument of 'it makes me feel good' if we don't change, seems rock solid.


Any large organisation will conduct a cost benefit analysis before implementing any major changes, they do so because to blunder through random changes is foolhardy in the least. How about we at least find a valid reason for change before fkking sh1t up to make a few socialist happy.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:10am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:07am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:01am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:58am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:52am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:48am: My argument is and always will be if there is no solid benefit for change ... Who determined that it should be measured by "solid benefit"? I mean, that's merely your subjective opinion; it hardly constitutes an argument. A solid benefit is one that not only I agree is worthwhile, but even yourself can recognise its worthiness; it can be measured, costed and found to be worthwhile to the country. Yes, but who said that that was what a Republic has to be measured by?  Nobody - just you. You're basing your argument on a false (subjective) premise. I thought it would be a good idea that before changing ones entire system of government, it should have some sort of benefit for that country, yep I would be the only person who ever thought that was a smart move. Carrying out an expensive pointless exercise for no valid reason, would be a bad idea, how silly of me. The point is, your premise is merely a subjective opinion. Yes, it may be shared by others but it isn't a universally accepted "truth". By manufacturing your own premise, you've ensured that your argument is valid. It doesn't work that way.

I would think that the condition of some sort of benefit leaves it open for a benefit to be added or shown if you have one ?

I would think most reasonable people would accept that if there isn't a good reason for doing something then in general there would be little point in doing it.

Its time wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:34am:

What cultural values do we instil in our kids when we don't even have an identity of our own ?

I thought we were Australian, not stateless?  :-?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:14am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:11am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:52am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:48am: My argument is and always will be if there is no solid benefit for change ... Who determined that it should be measured by "solid benefit"? I mean, that's merely your subjective opinion; it hardly constitutes an argument. People don't tend to just do things for no reason ? Agreed. But who determines what constitutes a "valid reason"?

You if it makes you happy.


Treating your system of government like you're a child hopped up on sugar, bouncing from one 'brilliant' idea to the next, is no basis for change.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:17am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:10am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:07am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:01am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:58am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:52am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:48am: My argument is and always will be if there is no solid benefit for change ... Who determined that it should be measured by "solid benefit"? I mean, that's merely your subjective opinion; it hardly constitutes an argument. A solid benefit is one that not only I agree is worthwhile, but even yourself can recognise its worthiness; it can be measured, costed and found to be worthwhile to the country. Yes, but who said that that was what a Republic has to be measured by?  Nobody - just you. You're basing your argument on a false (subjective) premise. I thought it would be a good idea that before changing ones entire system of government, it should have some sort of benefit for that country, yep I would be the only person who ever thought that was a smart move. Carrying out an expensive pointless exercise for no valid reason, would be a bad idea, how silly of me. The point is, your premise is merely a subjective opinion. Yes, it may be shared by others but it isn't a universally accepted "truth". By manufacturing your own premise, you've ensured that your argument is valid. It doesn't work that way. I would think that the condition of some sort of benefit leaves it open for a benefit to be added or shown if you have one ? I would think most reasonable people would accept that if there isn't a good reason for doing something then in general there would be little point in doing it.

You're missing the point.

Who determines what a "good reason" actually is?

skippy. wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:38am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:27am: skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:01am: Name one thing that makes your life better living under a monarchy of another country? I am a republican but I don't care that much about it either way. I care more that we have the Union Jack on our flag. Even the kiwis are smart enough to adopt a flag for the twenty first century instead on one created by a competition from a weetbix pack. I think the sad thing is monarchists can not think of good reasons to stay a constitutional monarchy other than the old " doh we will have to change all the money" we will do that when the queen carks it anyway otherwise our coins would still have Queen Victoria on them. ::) What is wrong with a county " feeling good" about itself as a reason for change? As I said while I am a republican as is the new Australian of the year btw, I don't like the previous models put forward. So I voted no last time we had a vote on the issue as I will next time unless we have a model that is not based on the politicians telling us who the best person for the job is. How does having the Union Jack on the flag affect you? Does it make bread more expensive for you? Do you get persecuted if you go somewhere because of it? Does it leave you curled up like a baby sucking your thumb when you think about it? It doesn't represent current Australia or its past given many white settlers were not English and the ones that were were not wanted by England anyway they were sent here never to return. Argue away, its your right, but at least forge a decent argument the old curtains will fade trick doesn't cut it. ::)

All of those who came on the First Fleet were English or subjects of the King George III at the time and the fleet sailed under the Union Jack. I know - I am a direct descendant of a member of the First Fleet ship called the Scarborough.

All this forelock tugging to a foreign monarch, yuck!

Becoming a republic may be a symbolic move, but symbols are powerful.

We need to be our own country, with a heritage from and friendship to the UK. Just not forelock tugging subservience.

Becominbg a republic will improve our standing in the part of the world where we are: Asia.

Crap about changing stationery, currency, signs etc can be done over 10–20 years, no real cost.

FGS, let us cut the umbilical cord, 115 years and still tied to Mummy England??? If you don’t think this counts in Asia you are wrong.

A popularly elected President with the powers of the present day GG, elected every two Federal elections.

I for one do not want to be ruled over by a foreign leader who represents everything I hate about the British....Stuck up traditions and worthless Royals who's only attribute is to be born to rule....It is time for Australia to become a republic and celebrate what makes us Australian and unique not hold on to a failed empire that provides us with nothing!!!

:-? :-? :-? 

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:20am:

You're missing the point. Who determines what a "good reason" actually is?

Well to this point I haven't even seen even a poor reason suggested ?

The starting point to find a good reason is a "reason"- any reason ?

Nobody seems to have one.

double post

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:20am:

You're missing the point. Who determines what a "good reason" actually is?

If republicans cannot event work out the definition of 'a good reason' for change, I think that is a rock solid argument to not let them recommend any sort of change.


I can personally think of good reasons to do lots of things, and good reasons to not; as a rational thinking person, intellectual reasoning comes pretty easy. I dare say I am not alone in this universe, so a group of capable republicans could surely knock together at least couple of benefits worthy of spending the money for change.


I would be more than happy to vote on those benefits on whether to change or not, but I will never support change, just so a few whiny socialists and skippy can feel better about themselves for a short while.

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:25am:

I for one do not want to be ruled over by a foreign leader who represents everything I hate about the British....Stuck up traditions and worthless Royals who's only attribute is to be born to rule....It is time for Australia to become a republic and celebrate what makes us Australian and unique not hold on to a failed empire that provides us with nothing!!! :-? :-? :-?

Thats the problem , what is being an Australian ?  At least the kiwis and aboriginals are in touch with their people and land

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:23am:

skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:38am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:27am: skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:01am: Name one thing that makes your life better living under a monarchy of another country? I am a republican but I don't care that much about it either way. I care more that we have the Union Jack on our flag. Even the kiwis are smart enough to adopt a flag for the twenty first century instead on one created by a competition from a weetbix pack. I think the sad thing is monarchists can not think of good reasons to stay a constitutional monarchy other than the old " doh we will have to change all the money" we will do that when the queen carks it anyway otherwise our coins would still have Queen Victoria on them. ::) What is wrong with a county " feeling good" about itself as a reason for change? As I said while I am a republican as is the new Australian of the year btw, I don't like the previous models put forward. So I voted no last time we had a vote on the issue as I will next time unless we have a model that is not based on the politicians telling us who the best person for the job is. How does having the Union Jack on the flag affect you? Does it make bread more expensive for you? Do you get persecuted if you go somewhere because of it? Does it leave you curled up like a baby sucking your thumb when you think about it? It doesn't represent current Australia or its past given many white settlers were not English and the ones that were were not wanted by England anyway they were sent here never to return. Argue away, its your right, but at least forge a decent argument the old curtains will fade trick doesn't cut it. ::) All of those who came on the First Fleet were English or subjects of the King George III at the time and the fleet sailed under the Union Jack. I know - I am a direct descendant of a member of the First Fleet ship called the Scarborough.

Many many many convicts sent here were Irish or Scot, please do keep up. ::) not to mention the poms that were sent here were not wanted by the mother land. Anyone with convict ancestary had forebears sent here because they were not wanted in England.
One in three People living in Australia were not even born here.
The union jack and England no longer if they ever did represent Australians.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:18am:

Its time wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:34am: What cultural values do we instil in our kids when we don't even have an identity of our own ? I thought we were Australian, not stateless?  :-?

Yes, I feel that we have always had a very solid identity of our own, we don't have the Lilly arsed frightened insecure nation of people with an identity crisis that this point relies upon, that is not us.

we don't even have an identity of our own

Using this excuse is spending a load of money trying to fix a problem that does not exist.

skippy. wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:56am:

The funny thing is I'm not even a staunch republican and would not even vote for the last option put to us, imagine if you had to argue against someone with a passion for the subject?  ;D ;D

You've touched on the biggest problem with this debate on this and other Australian Forums...

The Australian Republican debate invariably descends into ad hominem rants from both sides.

The only question I'd ask is - How would the tension arising from a perceived mandate of the people between an elected head of state and an elected head of government be controlled such that it would not / could not descend into a jousting match between the two incumbents?

Constitutional Monarchies (when confined to their respective native homelands) answer the question completely and definitively. In that the role of head of state is, by constitution, effectively powerless, leading to no show-down between the head of state and the head of government. The monarchical head of state is then free to embody a sense of national historical continuity, an icon of stability and a defender of his/her nation's constitution and commitment to democracy. Around the world, this arrangement has resulted in remarkable political stability and nowhere was this in modern times more exemplified than in Spain when King Juan-Carlos ended a coup without blood by asserting his role as Commander in chief and ordered the army back to barracks after an attempted coup in 1981 and ending it within hours of it rising. Even Spanish republicans and communists acceded to the value of constitutional Monarchy.

Monarchies are most effective when they represent their own people and their Monarchs are descended from an ancient family within the nation they serve.

However, it will be interesting to see what the Catalans and Basques make of the Spanish Monarchy if they ever gain independence in Spain.

The case of the Scots relationship to the British monarchy during the recent referendum was an interesting insight into whether a potentially (prima facie) foreign monarch ruling Scotland would or could survive. Fortunately for the House of Windsor, the Queen and her descendants can (and do) invoke their right to rule Scotland within a monarchy by rightly claiming descent from the Stuarts (via Mary, Queen of Scots then James VI & I), given no other living Stuart is a viable (or acceptable ) pretender.

For monarchies to be accepted (largely) without question, they need to prove their ancient right to rule. This is not a test that has any merit in new nations such as Australia whose Western history is too young and controversial (or arguably the result of an accident of history), to be indisputable (after all, this country could have been a Dutch or French possession).

New nations deserve to be represented by new and modern institutions of governance... But then, what to do with the potential rivalry between a HOS and a HOG, neither of whom can claim the right to rule by descent.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:28am:

I would be more than happy to vote on those benefits on whether to change or not, but I will never support change, just so a few whiny socialists and skippy can feel better about themselves for a short while.

And that's your prerogative.

You think that a "good reason" for change is a "solid benefit".

Fine - that's your subjective point of view, and there's nothing wrong with it.

Others, however, think that a "good reason" for change is "feeling better about themselves".

And that's fine too - they're entitled to their subjective opinions as well.

The point is, there is no one (objective) "good reason" for making the change to a Republic.

Your "solid benefit" argument holds no more weight than the "feeling good" argument.

I think anyone who has identity problems with the flag and or our head of state should quietly go off and get counseling.
Instead of dragging the whole country through any changes.

Perhaps if we are going to make some changes it could be West Australia's chance to escape from the Commonwealth.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:34am:

Using this excuse is spending a load of money trying to fix a problem that does not exist.

According to you, yes.

Others, however, think that there is a problem.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:27am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:20am: You're missing the point. Who determines what a "good reason" actually is? Well to this point I haven't even seen even a poor reason suggested ? The starting point to find a good reason is a "reason"- any reason ? Nobody seems to have one.

So far, from what I can work out, the main reason for offing our current system of government is:

1. We hate the poms and beating them at every sport (other than soccer, but who cares) they have ever invented is just not cutting it any-more.

2. Symbolism, or the 'vibe of the thing'.

3. The asians won't like us if they know we are a constitutional monarchy.

4. We don't need a reason for change other than we will feel better about ourselves.


It's got me fcckked how this didn't get up last time we voted, they are all rock solid arguments for change.  ;D ;D ;D

Mind you if we get the republic, then we will just need the bananas.

Australia being a republic wouldn't make me feel better about myself.
How could something like a technical change make you feel better about yourself?
If that's what you need to make yourself feel better, you've got problems.
What would you need after that to feel better again? It's a constant need for change that drives your self-image and that's a bad thing.

skippy. wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:31am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:23am: skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:38am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:27am: skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:01am: Name one thing that makes your life better living under a monarchy of another country? I am a republican but I don't care that much about it either way. I care more that we have the Union Jack on our flag. Even the kiwis are smart enough to adopt a flag for the twenty first century instead on one created by a competition from a weetbix pack. I think the sad thing is monarchists can not think of good reasons to stay a constitutional monarchy other than the old " doh we will have to change all the money" we will do that when the queen carks it anyway otherwise our coins would still have Queen Victoria on them. ::) What is wrong with a county " feeling good" about itself as a reason for change? As I said while I am a republican as is the new Australian of the year btw, I don't like the previous models put forward. So I voted no last time we had a vote on the issue as I will next time unless we have a model that is not based on the politicians telling us who the best person for the job is. How does having the Union Jack on the flag affect you? Does it make bread more expensive for you? Do you get persecuted if you go somewhere because of it? Does it leave you curled up like a baby sucking your thumb when you think about it? It doesn't represent current Australia or its past given many white settlers were not English and the ones that were were not wanted by England anyway they were sent here never to return. Argue away, its your right, but at least forge a decent argument the old curtains will fade trick doesn't cut it. ::) All of those who came on the First Fleet were English or subjects of the King George III at the time and the fleet sailed under the Union Jack. I know - I am a direct descendant of a member of the First Fleet ship called the Scarborough. Many many many convicts sent here were Irish or Scot, please do keep up. ::) not to mention the poms that were sent here were not wanted by the mother land. Anyone with convict ancestary had forebears sent here because they were not wanted in England. One in three People living in Australia were not even born here. The union jack and England no longer if they ever did represent Australians.

We have a very good flag which has a long standing history and is relevant to Australia.

The union jack and England no longer if they ever did represent Australians

Even though the relationship is not the same there is no harm in including the historical tie as part of our flag.

Never seen a suggested replacement flag for Australia that wasn't vastly inferior to what we currently have.

I see no point in spending a truck load of money to go backwards.

If we were to have some subtle change I would like to see the Aboriginal colours added to signify their importance and possibly a thin strip of random primary colours to signify European / Asian settlement etc.

miketrees wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:40am:

I think anyone who has identity problems with the flag and or our head of state should quietly go off and get counseling. Instead of dragging the whole country through any changes. Perhaps if we are going to make some changes it could be West Australia's chance to escape from the Commonwealth.

Arrrrrr the treasonous scum they be. How dare they be speaking against our Queen. Off with their heads.

I would like to see the Aboriginal colours added to signify their importance

I think the Southern Cross does that

Dnarever wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:42am:

skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:31am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:23am: skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:38am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:27am: skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 9:01am: Name one thing that makes your life better living under a monarchy of another country? I am a republican but I don't care that much about it either way. I care more that we have the Union Jack on our flag. Even the kiwis are smart enough to adopt a flag for the twenty first century instead on one created by a competition from a weetbix pack. I think the sad thing is monarchists can not think of good reasons to stay a constitutional monarchy other than the old " doh we will have to change all the money" we will do that when the queen carks it anyway otherwise our coins would still have Queen Victoria on them. ::) What is wrong with a county " feeling good" about itself as a reason for change? As I said while I am a republican as is the new Australian of the year btw, I don't like the previous models put forward. So I voted no last time we had a vote on the issue as I will next time unless we have a model that is not based on the politicians telling us who the best person for the job is. How does having the Union Jack on the flag affect you? Does it make bread more expensive for you? Do you get persecuted if you go somewhere because of it? Does it leave you curled up like a baby sucking your thumb when you think about it? It doesn't represent current Australia or its past given many white settlers were not English and the ones that were were not wanted by England anyway they were sent here never to return. Argue away, its your right, but at least forge a decent argument the old curtains will fade trick doesn't cut it. ::) All of those who came on the First Fleet were English or subjects of the King George III at the time and the fleet sailed under the Union Jack. I know - I am a direct descendant of a member of the First Fleet ship called the Scarborough. Many many many convicts sent here were Irish or Scot, please do keep up. ::) not to mention the poms that were sent here were not wanted by the mother land. Anyone with convict ancestary had forebears sent here because they were not wanted in England. One in three People living in Australia were not even born here. The union jack and England no longer if they ever did represent Australians. We have a very good flag which has a long standing history and is relevant to Australia. The union jack and England no longer if they ever did represent Australians Even though the relationship is not the same there is no harm in including the historical tie as part of our flag. Never seen a suggested replacement flag for Australia that wasn't vastly inferior to what we currently have. I see no point in spending a truck load of money to go backwards. If we were to have some subtle change I would like to see the Aboriginal colours added to signify their importance and possibly a thin strip of random primary colours to signify European / Asian settlement etc.

So you do support change then?
I have as much right to support change as you do not to. These things need to be put to the people and majority rules.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:36am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:28am: I would be more than happy to vote on those benefits on whether to change or not, but I will never support change, just so a few whiny socialists and skippy can feel better about themselves for a short while. And that's your prerogative. You think that a "good reason" for change is a "solid benefit". Fine - that's your subjective point of view, and there's nothing wrong with it. Others, however, think that a "good reason" for change is "feeling better about themselves". And that's fine too - they're entitled to their subjective opinions as well. The point is, there is no one (objective) "good reason" for making the change to a Republic. Your "solid benefit" argument holds no more weight than the "feeling good" argument.

My point exactly, there is no reason for change, while you are more than welcome to hold an opinion for change, you can't spend money doing so without good reason.

Bit circular I know, but thanks to your ham-fisted style of reply, this is where we have ended up.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:27am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:20am: You're missing the point. Who determines what a "good reason" actually is? Well to this point I haven't even seen even a poor reason suggested ? The starting point to find a good reason is a "reason"- any reason ? Nobody seems to have one.

Two have been mentioned:

"solid benefit"

"feeling good"

Each as valid as the other.

There is no one objective "good reason" for making or not making the change.

miketrees wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:45am:

I would like to see the Aboriginal colours added to signify their importance I think the Southern Cross does that

How so? What does the southern cross have to do with Indiginous colours?
I'd like to see the southern cross flag with an aboriginal flag as its background.
The current flag was not invented until federation. I believe over a hundred years after federation and much change to the make up of this country it is time to re address it. In those times we still had black fellas in chains. Time we grew up.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:49am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:36am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:28am: I would be more than happy to vote on those benefits on whether to change or not, but I will never support change, just so a few whiny socialists and skippy can feel better about themselves for a short while. And that's your prerogative. You think that a "good reason" for change is a "solid benefit". Fine - that's your subjective point of view, and there's nothing wrong with it. Others, however, think that a "good reason" for change is "feeling better about themselves". And that's fine too - they're entitled to their subjective opinions as well. The point is, there is no one (objective) "good reason" for making the change to a Republic. Your "solid benefit" argument holds no more weight than the "feeling good" argument. My point exactly, there is no reason for change ...

You're missing the point again.

There is no one universal, objective "good reason" for change.

There are, however, many reasons to become a Republic.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:49am:

... while you are more than welcome to hold an opinion for change, you can't spend money doing so without good reason.

Yes, "good reason" according to you.

That's merely your subjective point of view.

Others say that "feeling good" is a good reason.

You don't get to determine what a "good reason" is for everyone else.

Neither do I.

Our Aboriginal people deserve a republic and full recognition of their appalling treatment by the British Empire....The day we tell the POMS to get stuffed will be a great day for this nation!!!

:) :) :)

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 11:02am:

Our Aboriginal people deserve a republic and full recognition of their appalling treatment by the British Empire....The day we tell the POMS to get stuffed will be a great day for this nation!!! :) :) :)

;D ;D ;D

Go on! Tell me to get STUFFED!

(Polled YES - but with conditions)

I'm mighty surprised at the NO vote count.

Who are you, and what's your reasoning?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 11:03am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 11:02am: Our Aboriginal people deserve a republic and full recognition of their appalling treatment by the British Empire....The day we tell the POMS to get stuffed will be a great day for this nation!!! :) :) :) ;D ;D ;D Go on! Tell me to get STUFFED! (Polled YES - but with conditions) I'm mighty surprised at the NO vote count. Who are you, and what's your reasoning?

Get stuffed!!!

;) ;) ;)

I have no problem with individuals Herbert....It is the British Empire that represents a past Australia should reject....It is time for Australia to forge its own destiny and become a country with its own traditions and symbols that grow from a new beginning!!!

Colin (Emperor) Barnett named the Elizabeth Quay after the Queen when many eminent and well deserving West Australian's could have better represented the City and State....Monarchists are so out of touch with Australia it is time to cut their apron strings!!!

[smiley=beer.gif] [smiley=beer.gif] [smiley=beer.gif]

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:56am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:49am: ... while you are more than welcome to hold an opinion for change, you can't spend money doing so without good reason. Yes, "good reason" according to you. That's merely your subjective point of view. Others say that "feeling good" is a good reason. You don't get to determine what a "good reason" is for everyone else. Neither do I.

Yes, I do enjoy your sole focus on semantics, it adds a certain something to your argument.

I gave you the option and any republican to provide a good reason as opposed to a bad reason. Reasons can be analysed and given objective values, if you are not too stupid, if they can't then they can be classified as 'not good'


But you keep plugging away at your one single focal point, just like your mummy taught you.

---

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:53am:

[ You're missing the point again. There is no one universal, objective "good reason" for change. There are, however, many reasons to become a Republic.

And if they are of no real value to the country, then they are pointless and irrelevant.


If this helps I did use the word valid on more than one occasion, instead of good. I noticed you could have used it but didn't, maybe change out the modifier and give that one a go.


Valid
adjective
1. sound; just; well-founded:
a valid reason.

2. producing the desired result; effective:
a valid antidote for gloom.

3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.

4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force:
a valid contract.

5. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.

6. Archaic. robust; well; healthy.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 11:40am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:53am: [ You're missing the point again. There is no one universal, objective "good reason" for change. There are, however, many reasons to become a Republic. And if they are of no real value to the country, then they are pointless and irrelevant.

"value" according to whom?

Some argue that "feeling good" is quite valuable.

Again, you are merely stating your subjective view.

You don't get to determine what's "good" for the rest of the country.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 11:34am:

Yes, I do enjoy your sole focus on semantics, it adds a certain something to your argument. I gave you the option and any republican to provide a good reason as opposed to a bad reason.

Absolutely nothing to do with semantics (you should probably check that word in the dictionary).

Moreover, what constitutes a "good reason" or a "bad reason" is completely subjective.

Many say that "feeling good" is a good reason.

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

Colin (Emperor) Barnett named the Elizabeth Quay after the Queen when many eminent and well deserving West Australian's could have better represented the City and State....Monarchists are so out of touch with Australia it is time to cut their apron strings!!!

Colin Barnett (apparently) is a self-declared republican.

We named a hospital after Fiona Stanley... And god knows we apologise to Ms Stanley for that!

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 11:45am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 11:40am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:53am: [ You're missing the point again. There is no one universal, objective "good reason" for change. There are, however, many reasons to become a Republic. And if they are of no real value to the country, then they are pointless and irrelevant. "value" according to whom? Some argue that "feeling good" is quite valuable. Again, you are merely stating your subjective view. You don't get to determine what's "good" for the rest of the country.

Still sticking with "good" are we?


I did, once again, use valid on more than one occasion when describing the reasons or benefits for change and will continue to do so.


Also at no time did I argue that I was the sole arbiter of what was 'good' or in this case valid; I did state back several replies to you, that it could be you or even a group of republicans. But without a valid reason for change then change should not occur.


Once these magical but elusive reasons or benefits are identified, then let the masses decide if they are worthy or valid.


I know you have nothing but your semantics to get you noticed, so feel free to focus elsewhere as I find your limited capabilities eventually tedious and not worthy or valid (see what I did there) for further interaction.  ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 11:56am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 11:45am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 11:40am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:53am: [ You're missing the point again. There is no one universal, objective "good reason" for change. There are, however, many reasons to become a Republic. And if they are of no real value to the country, then they are pointless and irrelevant. "value" according to whom? Some argue that "feeling good" is quite valuable. Again, you are merely stating your subjective view. You don't get to determine what's "good" for the rest of the country. Still sticking with "good" are we? I did, once again, use valid on more than one occasion when describing the reasons or benefits for change and will continue to do so.

"valid" according to you, yes.

Once again, you're just putting forward your personal opinion.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 11:56am:

But without a valid reason for change then change should not occur.

Many people think that "feeling good" is a valid reason.

It's not up to you, or me, to tell them that they're wrong.

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 11:02am:

Our Aboriginal people deserve a republic and full recognition of their appalling treatment by the British Empire....The day we tell the POMS to get stuffed will be a great day for this nation!!! :) :) :)

I suppose you can return those VCs when that happens, after all they were originally issued by a Monarch and approved by a Monarch......

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 11:59am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 11:56am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 11:45am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 11:40am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:53am: [ You're missing the point again. There is no one universal, objective "good reason" for change. There are, however, many reasons to become a Republic. And if they are of no real value to the country, then they are pointless and irrelevant. "value" according to whom? Some argue that "feeling good" is quite valuable. Again, you are merely stating your subjective view. You don't get to determine what's "good" for the rest of the country. Still sticking with "good" are we? I did, once again, use valid on more than one occasion when describing the reasons or benefits for change and will continue to do so. "valid" according to you, yes. Once again, you're just putting forward your personal opinion.

I did put the meaning of 'valid' up for you to read, pity your comprehensions skills are lacking.

Valid is not subjective, to be valid a hypothesis / theory must be able to be consistently replicated. A decent education will have told you that.


So an idea or reason must able to be consider of value by various groups to be considered valid. Multiple groups or individuals using intellectual reasoning to come to the same conclusion.


For example
It is not just my subjective opinion that swimming and consuming in raw sewerage is bad (opposite of good), it is valid because many, many exerts hold the opinion based on evidence and observation.

Or
It would be a benefit to Australia becoming a republic because all republics are cancer free and horses sh1t money.


See how it works

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:01pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 11:56am: But without a valid reason for change then change should not occur. Many people think that "feeling good" is a valid reason. It's not up to you, or me, to tell them that they're wrong.

When they are potentially fcckking up the country, then yeah it is.



Where is the benefit, another word I have used consistently but you have ignored.



No valid benefit, no reason to change.

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 11:03am: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 11:02am: Our Aboriginal people deserve a republic and full recognition of their appalling treatment by the British Empire....The day we tell the POMS to get stuffed will be a great day for this nation!!! :) :) :) ;D ;D ;D Go on! Tell me to get STUFFED! (Polled YES - but with conditions) I'm mighty surprised at the NO vote count. Who are you, and what's your reasoning? Get stuffed!!! ;) ;) ;)

Thank you. This will provide me with at least some temporary relief from my British Middle Class Guilt tripping ...

link


philperth2010 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

I have no problem with individuals Herbert....It is the British Empire that represents a past Australia should reject....It is time for Australia to forge its own destiny and become a country with its own traditions and symbols that grow from a new beginning!!! Colin (Emperor) Barnett named the Elizabeth Quay after the Queen when many eminent and well deserving West Australian's could have better represented the City and State....Monarchists are so out of touch with Australia it is time to cut their apron strings!!! [smiley=beer.gif] [smiley=beer.gif] [smiley=beer.gif]

Jesus Christ! Phil-of-Perth ... you sound like Hitler at one of his Rave Parties!

;D ;D ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0V_xf3OQgM

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 12:01pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 11:56am: But without a valid reason for change then change should not occur. Many people think that "feeling good" is a valid reason. It's not up to you, or me, to tell them that they're wrong. When they are potentially fcckking up the country, then yeah it is. Where is the benefit, another word I have used consistently but you have ignored. No valid benefit, no reason to change.

Many people believe that "feeling good" is a valid benefit, and is therefore a reason to change.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:53am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:49am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:36am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:28am: I would be more than happy to vote on those benefits on whether to change or not, but I will never support change, just so a few whiny socialists and skippy can feel better about themselves for a short while. And that's your prerogative. You think that a "good reason" for change is a "solid benefit". Fine - that's your subjective point of view, and there's nothing wrong with it. Others, however, think that a "good reason" for change is "feeling better about themselves". And that's fine too - they're entitled to their subjective opinions as well. The point is, there is no one (objective) "good reason" for making the change to a Republic. Your "solid benefit" argument holds no more weight than the "feeling good" argument. My point exactly, there is no reason for change ... You're missing the point again. There is no one universal, objective "good reason" for change. There are, however, many reasons to become a Republic.

Going around in circles still no no good reasons shown.

What type of republic - banana, dictatorial, third world ?

Republic is just a word, why would anyone care about a stupid label ?

May as well call us a watermelon. 

The constitutional watermelon of Australia ?  How about that if you want a new label ?

It would do exactly the same thing as becoming a republic, cost a lot for no benefit.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:38pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:53am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:49am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:36am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 10:28am: I would be more than happy to vote on those benefits on whether to change or not, but I will never support change, just so a few whiny socialists and skippy can feel better about themselves for a short while. And that's your prerogative. You think that a "good reason" for change is a "solid benefit". Fine - that's your subjective point of view, and there's nothing wrong with it. Others, however, think that a "good reason" for change is "feeling better about themselves". And that's fine too - they're entitled to their subjective opinions as well. The point is, there is no one (objective) "good reason" for making the change to a Republic. Your "solid benefit" argument holds no more weight than the "feeling good" argument. My point exactly, there is no reason for change ... You're missing the point again. There is no one universal, objective "good reason" for change. There are, however, many reasons to become a Republic. Going around in circles still no no good reasons shown.

No "good reasons" according to you.

That's merely your subjective opinion, though.

You don't get to decide what's "good" for the rest of the country.

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

....It is the British Empire that represents a past Australia should reject....

Australia is irreversibly connected to the British Empire, its traditions and culture regardless of whether it becomes a Republic or not.

The English have 40,000 plus years of existence as well.


philperth2010 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

It is time for Australia to forge its own destiny and become a country with its own traditions and symbols that grow from a new beginning!!!

....that already began on 1 January 1901

Why do we need to change our head of state? Is the Queen meddling in our affairs? Is her representative, the G-G bringing this country into disrepute? Will our lives suddenly be enriched somehow by becoming a republic with an Australian head of state? Will the price of petrol suddenly fall if the Union Jack is no longer on our national flag? Is our system of government crumbling around us? The answer is no to all of the above. Our head of state, in all but name, is an Australian. His name is Malcolm Turnbull and he is the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia. He is held accountable by the Federal Parliament and the people of Australia via democratic elections. He does not answer to the Queen or the Governor-General and has little to do with either in the running of this country in all but ceremonial circumstances. Why do we need to become a republic? Proponents say that we must so that an Australian can aspire to be head of state of this country, not a foreigner (i.e. the British monarch). Why would anyone aspire to a ceremonial role? Unless we're going to go down the path of the United States and have a President as the chief executive and head of state, the role of head of state will effectively not change from what it is today, except that it will be an Australian citizen performing those rare ceremonial roles. Big deal! My advice: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Swagman wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:48pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 11:15am: ....It is the British Empire that represents a past Australia should reject.... Australia is irreversibly connected to the British Empire, its traditions and culture regardless of whether it becomes a Republic or not. The English have 40,000 plus years of existence as well. philperth2010 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 11:15am: It is time for Australia to forge its own destiny and become a country with its own traditions and symbols that grow from a new beginning!!! ....that already began on 1 January 1901

I'd just love it if Phil can enlighten us as to how we could possibly "reject" 200+ years of history. Swag, you're right. Australia, for all intents and purposes, became an independent nation on 1 January 1901. The monarch is now little more than a figurehead who performs ceremonial duties on very rare occasions and plays absolutely no meaningful role in our political process - exactly the same situation that would occur if an Australian were head of state (unless we're going to have a US-style system of government with a President).

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:17pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 12:48pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 11:15am: ....It is the British Empire that represents a past Australia should reject.... Australia is irreversibly connected to the British Empire, its traditions and culture regardless of whether it becomes a Republic or not. The English have 40,000 plus years of existence as well. philperth2010 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 11:15am: It is time for Australia to forge its own destiny and become a country with its own traditions and symbols that grow from a new beginning!!! ....that already began on 1 January 1901 I'd just love it if Phil can enlighten us as to how we could possibly "reject" 200+ years of history. Swag, you're right. Australia, for all intents and purposes, became an independent nation on 1 January 1901. The monarch is now little more than a figurehead who performs ceremonial duties on very rare occasions and plays absolutely no meaningful role in our political process - exactly the same situation that would occur if an Australian were head of state (unless we're going to have a US-style system of government with a President).

Yep.

So we might as well take the last step, and officially become a Republic.

It's gonna happen - it's just a matter of time.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 11:03am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 11:02am: Our Aboriginal people deserve a republic and full recognition of their appalling treatment by the British Empire....The day we tell the POMS to get stuffed will be a great day for this nation!!! :) :) :) ;D ;D ;D Go on! Tell me to get STUFFED! (Polled YES - but with conditions) I'm mighty surprised at the NO vote count. Who are you, and what's your reasoning?

Sox R us.

Vic wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:08am:

Nothing.  An expensive and unnecessary move.   Just think of the sheer cost of changing and renaming capabilities (all those "HMAS" for a start)

You're making assumptions here about the cost. How do you know that the current arrangement isn't wasting money?


Vic wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:08am:

As we move through the decades, we are slowly moving away from the ties to Britain anyway, it will just naturally die off - let it just slowly go away and rethink when we have no more better things to do with taxpayer's money

Apathy isn't a reason not to consider the idea.

Bam wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:30pm:

LEUT Bigvicfella (RTD) wrote Today at 7:08am: Nothing.  An expensive and unnecessary move.   Just think of the sheer cost of changing and renaming capabilities (all those "HMAS" for a start) You're making assumptions here about the cost. How do you know that the current arrangement isn't wasting money?

Consider it a rebranding exercise. There are costs involved. Of course with a rebranding exercise you hope for greater sales. That is unlikely with government.

Fundamentally, what we are talking about is an amendment to the Constitution that would change the viceregal arrangement of our head of state to one where the head of state is not serving at the pleasure of a foreign monarch.

We should look to New Zealand as an example of the right way of considering the issue. New Zealand is in the process of considering a change to their flag. They are using a series of two plebiscites to decide the issue: one to choose the most favoured design for the new flag, then choosing the nation's flag between the current flag and the winning design from the first referendum.

We can consider the republic issue in a similar manner. Choose the favoured model in a plebiscite, then vote on whether to implement the preferred model at a referendum.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:14pm:

Why do we need to change our head of state? Is the Queen meddling in our affairs? Is her representative, the G-G bringing this country into disrepute? Will our lives suddenly be enriched somehow by becoming a republic with an Australian head of state? Will the price of petrol suddenly fall if the Union Jack is no longer on our national flag? Is our system of government crumbling around us? The answer is no to all of the above. Our head of state, in all but name, is an Australian. His name is Malcolm Turnbull and he is the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia. He is held accountable by the Federal Parliament and the people of Australia via democratic elections. He does not answer to the Queen or the Governor-General and has little to do with either in the running of this country in all but ceremonial circumstances. Why do we need to become a republic? Proponents say that we must so that an Australian can aspire to be head of state of this country, not a foreigner (i.e. the British monarch). Why would anyone aspire to a ceremonial role? Unless we're going to go down the path of the United States and have a President as the chief executive and head of state, the role of head of state will effectively not change from what it is today, except that it will be an Australian citizen performing those rare ceremonial roles. Big deal! My advice: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

not true. For someone that writes on a political forum you know very little about politics.
The party with the largest majority in parliament decide the PM and remove them as they see fit. Ask basher Abbott for confirmation of that.
The PM does answer to the GG he can not hold an election without the GG say so and the GG can remove him ask Whitlam. In fact the GG also has to swear in the PM and all ministers.
You're entitled to your 1800s beliefs but you have no right to force them on others.
We should be entitled to change if the majority so wish.
If that change is just to "feel good" so be it, who gave you the sherriffs badge to decide otherwise? This country has moved on a long way in the past hundred years and no longer Kowtow  to a country that threw out your ancestors as they did not want them.

Hold on Bam

The New Zealanders may vote for a change, then find that none of the new flag designs are better than the old flag.

Do they still have the choice of the old flag when they go to choose.

Their new flag designs are vomit inducing.

Could we end up the same way, decide we want a change, then not like the Republic models dished up to us?

We would want to be able to vote for the old system in the second vote.

You know a lot of people want to vote in the head of state, yet the politicians will not want that to happen.

If we are going to go to the effort of changing, I want to vote.
And I want the head of state to have the power to dismiss a government and call a new election (within certain time limits)

Bam wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:36pm:

Fundamentally, what we are talking about is an amendment to the Constitution that would change the viceregal arrangement of our head of state to one where the head of state is not serving at the pleasure of a foreign monarch. We should look to New Zealand as an example of the right way of considering the issue. New Zealand is in the process of considering a change to their flag. They are using a series of two plebiscites to decide the issue: one to choose the most favoured design for the new flag, then choosing the nation's flag between the current flag and the winning design from the first referendum. We can consider the republic issue in a similar manner. Choose the favoured model in a plebiscite, then vote on whether to implement the preferred model at a referendum.

NZ maturity  is way beyond that of those living in the 1800s desperately grasping hold of a bygone era no longer relevant to the present day. If we become a Republic the curtains shall surely fade.

Keep the thread going skippy (for the umpthteen time) and you might get some more yes votes.
Or you might just get more no votes.

miketrees wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:45pm:

Hold on Bam The New Zealanders may vote for a change, then find that none of the new flag designs are better than the old flag. Do they still have the choice of the old flag when they go to choose. Their new flag designs are vomit inducing. Could we end up the same way, decide we want a change, then not like the Republic models dished up to us? We would want to be able to vote for the old system in the second vote. You know a lot of people want to vote in the head of state, yet the politicians will not want that to happen. If we are going to go to the effort of changing, I want to vote. And I want the head of state to have the power to dismiss a government and call a new election (within certain time limits)

You need to read Bams post, he clearly says they will have a choice between the current and new designs.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:47pm:

Keep the thread going skippy (for the umpthteen time) and you might get some more yes votes. Or you might just get more no votes.

You'll run out of sox sooner or later. 8-)

If we become a Republic the curtains shall surely fade.

If you think that way,,, just go off and get some help for yourself , no need to drag us through a load of unnecessary work

You need to read Bams post, he clearly says they will have a choice between the current and new designs.

Do you think that is a courtesy that will be afforded the Australian people?

I am not so sure

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:14pm:

Our head of state, in all but name, is an Australian. His name is Malcolm Turnbull and he is the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia. He is held accountable by the Federal Parliament and the people of Australia via democratic elections. He does not answer to the Queen or the Governor-General.

Really? Who swears him in? To whom does he pledge allegiance? Who signs bills into Acts of Parliament? Who holds reserve powers?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:14pm:

Our head of state, in all but name, is an Australian. His name is Malcolm Turnbull and he is the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Nope.

He's Head of Government, not our Head of State.

miketrees wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:52pm:

You need to read Bams post, he clearly says they will have a choice between the current and new designs. Do you think that is a courtesy that will be afforded the Australian people? I am not so sure

Oh so lets not do it because it doesn't meet your argument?
How do you know it could not be an option?
Even if it wasn't the majority should rule,son.  If you don't like that there is always mother England waiting to embrace you. Oh that's right, you're not even allowed to work there anymore unless you are one of them, they don't want those scum Aussies going over and taking all the pommy jobs now do they?

No Skip,,, we could end up only being given choices that the majority wont want

Since the British stopped sending out Brits to be GG, and legislation stopped in Canberra, I have not been interested in the Republic issue.  The problem with a new flag is that it is almost bound to be changed in bad taste.

Look at all the new flags around the world. Most of them have nothing to do with Flag design. I will vote for a Republic only when the right model is presented. That does not include a President elected by politicians.

I want a President by popular election.

I want a flag that is flag, and not a 3rd World petrol station logo. It must be able to lose a third of its flying side and still be recognized.

The coinage has to be rationalized into sizes, values, and weight closer to the American categories. The heavy 20 and 50 cent pieces have to go.

There must be no mention of race in the Constitution other than their equality.

There are other legislative issues which are almost certain to get tangled, but only if the above items are guaranteed will I consider voting for a Republic.

I'm glad that someone other than a politician has reserve powers.

issuevoter wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 2:03pm:

I want a President by popular election.

Our current Head of State isn't elected.

You want our Republic's HOS to be elected by a popular vote, but you have no problem with the current HOS being born into the position.

Why is that?

miketrees wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 2:02pm:

No Skip,,, we could end up only being given choices that the majority wont want

If the majority don't want it they won't vote for it.
I did not vote for a republic when given the opportunity eighteen years ago as I did not like the model. Many others agreed with me. Australians are not stupid, if they don't think something is a better option they do not vote for it. Given many polls in those days suggested at least half the population  wanted a republic but the one on offer was not the one they wanted proves Australians don't make change for change sake. In order for a republic to be successful much more than 50% of the population would need to support it given the way referendums are skewed to favour the incumbent.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 2:07pm:

I'm glad that someone other than a politician has reserve powers.

True. And constitutional monarchies that belong to the nation they serve are likely to have an excellent track record of using those reserve powers well and are respected for it (such that they are reserve powers outside the Westminster system).

Two good (and respected) examples

      Emperor Hirohito - Ordering the Japanese to surrender (no Japanese commoner could have achieved the same result as quickly).
      King Juan-Carlos of Spain - The Spanish 1981 attempted coup.

One (disrespected) example -

     Vice-Regal John Kerr - The Palace would not comment or intervene - Say no more.

skippy. wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 2:10pm:

miketrees wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:02pm: No Skip,,, we could end up only being given choices that the majority wont want If the majority don't want it they won't vote for it. I did not vote for a republic when given the opportunity eighteen years ago as I did not like the model. Many others agreed with me. Australians are not stupid, if they don't think something is a better option they do not vote for it. Given many polls in those days suggested at least half the population  wanted a republic but the one on offer was not the one they wanted proves Australians don't make change for change sake. In order for a republic to be successful much more than 50% of the population would need to support it given the way referendums are skewed to favour the incumbent.

skippeeee, you've made some pretty spectacularly inaccurate statements in this Thread....but apart from telling us you want a Republic, you have not said who the Head of State would be, and how they would be elected....(if you were deciding the issues.)

A model for appointing an Australian President (other than by direct election) ?

A 'Sovereign Council' - Say, an eleven member council of Australian 'elders' who do not hold political office (and are ineligible to be appointed or remain on the Sovereign Council if they hold or intend to hold political office) who are appointed to the council by Parliament. The councillors nominate (say every 5 years) an appropriate Australian for President. If the nominee accepts his nomination, the nominee is ratified by Parliament and becomes Australian president for a fixed term.

The Sovereign Council nominates and can recommend to Parliament the dismissal of the President, which has legal effect on ratification by Parliament.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 2:20pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:07pm: I'm glad that someone other than a politician has reserve powers. True. And constitutional monarchies that belong to the nation they serve are likely to have an excellent track record of using those reserve powers well and are respected for it (such that they are reserve powers outside the Westminster system). Two good (and respected) examples       Emperor Hirohito - Ordering the Japanese to surrender (no Japanese commoner could have achieved the same result as quickly).       King Juan-Carlos of Spain - The Spanish 1981 attempted coup. One (disrespected) example -      Vice-Regal John Kerr - The Palace would not comment or intervene - Say no more.

Wrong. Kerr acted to remove a govt attempting to rule without the consent of Parliament's

.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 2:43pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:20pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:07pm: I'm glad that someone other than a politician has reserve powers. True. And constitutional monarchies that belong to the nation they serve are likely to have an excellent track record of using those reserve powers well and are respected for it (such that they are reserve powers outside the Westminster system). Two good (and respected) examples       Emperor Hirohito - Ordering the Japanese to surrender (no Japanese commoner could have achieved the same result as quickly).       King Juan-Carlos of Spain - The Spanish 1981 attempted coup. One (disrespected) example -      Vice-Regal John Kerr - The Palace would not comment or intervene - Say no more. Wrong. Kerr acted to remove a govt attempting to rule without the consent of Parliament's

Kerr argued he used the sovereign's reserve powers.

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 2:27pm:

skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:10pm: miketrees wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:02pm: No Skip,,, we could end up only being given choices that the majority wont want If the majority don't want it they won't vote for it. I did not vote for a republic when given the opportunity eighteen years ago as I did not like the model. Many others agreed with me. Australians are not stupid, if they don't think something is a better option they do not vote for it. Given many polls in those days suggested at least half the population  wanted a republic but the one on offer was not the one they wanted proves Australians don't make change for change sake. In order for a republic to be successful much more than 50% of the population would need to support it given the way referendums are skewed to favour the incumbent. skippeeee, you've made some pretty spectacularly inaccurate statements in this Thread....but apart from telling us you want a Republic, you have not said who the Head of State would be, and how they would be elected....(if you were deciding the issues.)

So what?
You have not said anything but an attempt to troll me.
Unlike you I don't attempt to run threads based on my belief, I have made it clear while I'm a republican I am not willing to settle for a Republic  under any circumstance. Do keep up.  How many of your sox voted in the thread aaaaauuuussssssiiie? Or do we need to ask the mods that answer?
PS what statements a spectacular inaccuracies,aaaaaauuuussssiiiie?

issuevoter wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 2:03pm:

I want a President by popular election.

Why should we call our head of state a President, or el presidente what is wrong with our current name ?

Who wants or needs a president - not me.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 2:53pm:

issuevoter wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:03pm: I want a President by popular election. Why should we call our head of state a President, or el presidente what is wrong with our current name ? Who wants or needs a president - not me.

I agree there is no reason to change the name of head of state to El presidente, that will save some of our esteemed monarchists a couple of dollars.

Quote:

So what?

You have said you favour a Republic and yet voted "N," in the last election because you did not like the offered models.  What is the model you like, skippeee?


Quote:

You have not said anything but an attempt to troll me.

I've made one post which asked you a question I knew you would run a mile from because I reckon you are just flapping your gums.  Put some meat on the moans bones skippeeee.



Quote:

Unlike you I don't attempt to run threads based on my belief, I have made it clear while I'm a republican I am not willing to settle for a Republic  under any circumstance. Do keep up.  How many of your sox voted in the thread aaaaauuuussssssiiie? Or do we need to ask the mods that answer?

Thousands skippeeee.  The GMods will tell you.



Quote:

PS what statements a spectacular inaccuracies,aaaaaauuuussssiiiie?

1.  The Union Jack.
2.  The alleged weet bix competition.  Weet bix were not around in 1901.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 2:37pm:

A model for appointing an Australian President (other than by direct election) ? A 'Sovereign Council' - Say, an eleven member council of Australian 'elders' who do not hold political office (and are ineligible to be appointed or remain on the Sovereign Council if they hold or intend to hold political office) who are appointed to the council by Parliament. The councillors nominate (say every 5 years) an appropriate Australian for President. If the nominee accepts his nomination, the nominee is ratified by Parliament and becomes Australian president for a fixed term. The Sovereign Council nominates and can recommend to Parliament the dismissal of the President, which has legal effect on ratification by Parliament.

Sounds like a Politburo.......

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:01pm:

Quote: So what? You have said you favour a Republic and yet voted "N," in the last election because you did not like the offered models.  What is the model you like, skippeee? not the one on offer [quote]You have not said anything but an attempt to troll me.

I've made one post which asked you a question I knew you would run a mile from because I reckon you are just flapping your gums.  Put some meat on the moans bones skippeeee.
i don't answer to to you


Quote:

Unlike you I don't attempt to run threads based on my belief, I have made it clear while I'm a republican I am not willing to settle for a Republic  under any circumstance. Do keep up.  How many of your sox voted in the thread aaaaauuuussssssiiie? Or do we need to ask the mods that answer?

Thousands skippeeee.  The GMods will tell you.
that doesn't surprise me given the mods have said you run many


Quote:

PS what statements a spectacular inaccuracies,aaaaaauuuussssiiiie?

1.  The Union Jack.
2.  The alleged weet bix competition.  Weet bix were not around in 1901.[/quote]
so I embellished it a little it was won via a competition as I said The Union Jack does not appear on the Irish or Scot flag, Einstein so my comment was true::)
It must suck to be you.

The first settlement of "Australia" was in 1788 of the First Fleet. This is why we celebrate "Australia Day" on 26 January. ::)

We gained independence on 19/1/1901.


Quote:

The only remaining constitutional connection with the United Kingdom is through the monarch, who is the monarch not only of the UK, but also of Australia and of each of its States. The main function of the monarch is to appoint and dismiss the Governor-General and the State Governors, and this function is exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister or the relevant State Premier. (The monarch is also sometimes asked to perform some function, such as giving the Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament, for ceremonial purposes during a Royal visit.)

Should we ever become a Republic, I would prefer that we, the people, vote for that person and not have the Prime Minister "select" the President as they now do with the GG ... which was Howard's idea (and I did vote YES for a Republic back then).

In other words, similar to the USA but without all the BS and only rich people being able to run for "President".

Meanwhile, we should also change the current term for a Federal Government from 3 years to 4 years and limit them to (say) 2 "terms" (i.e. 8 years).

The US "Congress" (Parliament) is also based on the Westminster System.  They also have a House Of Representatives and a Senate.

Australia's main problem is that we are still  a VERY SMALL population ...  25 million now, isn't it? We should cease immigration of those who will NEVER fit in (Middle East mostly) as they don't care who the Government is, provided they still get their Welfare payments every fortnight. They also get to VOTE, don't they? Guess what they would vote for?  ;D

OK .. My 2 cents worth.

I DO understand what Skippy is saying. Good on you, Skip. Don't let the bastards grind you down.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 2:43pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:20pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:07pm: I'm glad that someone other than a politician has reserve powers. True. And constitutional monarchies that belong to the nation they serve are likely to have an excellent track record of using those reserve powers well and are respected for it (such that they are reserve powers outside the Westminster system). Two good (and respected) examples       Emperor Hirohito - Ordering the Japanese to surrender (no Japanese commoner could have achieved the same result as quickly).       King Juan-Carlos of Spain - The Spanish 1981 attempted coup. One (disrespected) example -      Vice-Regal John Kerr - The Palace would not comment or intervene - Say no more. Wrong. Kerr acted to remove a govt attempting to rule without the consent of Parliament's

Kerr acted badly and in contravention of the required procedures, recent revelations make it look a lot worse than was known at the time showing improper discussions poor advice that was not allowed and secret discussions involving royalty.

Kerr was meant to have not acted till it was necessary and to have been taking his primary advice from the PM. When the PM showed up to ask for a half senate election to resolve the impasse that is what should have happened. The current PM had a solution to the problem and had every right to expect that would be the position taken.

The actions of the GG the opposition leader several judges and some of the Royal family were disgraceful.

Swagman wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:05pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:37pm: A model for appointing an Australian President (other than by direct election) ? A 'Sovereign Council' - Say, an eleven member council of Australian 'elders' who do not hold political office (and are ineligible to be appointed or remain on the Sovereign Council if they hold or intend to hold political office) who are appointed to the council by Parliament. The councillors nominate (say every 5 years) an appropriate Australian for President. If the nominee accepts his nomination, the nominee is ratified by Parliament and becomes Australian president for a fixed term. The Sovereign Council nominates and can recommend to Parliament the dismissal of the President, which has legal effect on ratification by Parliament. Sounds like a Politburo.......

What does the appointment of a Vice-Regal by the Prime Minister sound like to you?

skippy. wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:08pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 3:01pm: Quote: So what? You have said you favour a Republic and yet voted "N," in the last election because you did not like the offered models.  What is the model you like, skippeee? not the one on offer What is the one on offer, skippeeee? [quote]You have not said anything but an attempt to troll me. I've made one post which asked you a question I knew you would run a mile from because I reckon you are just flapping your gums.  Put some meat on the moans bones skippeeee. i don't answer to to you Indeed you don't.  But one day, you'll have to decide what model you favour instead of taring down the suggestions of others. [quote]Unlike you I don't attempt to run threads based on my belief, I have made it clear while I'm a republican I am not willing to settle for a Republic  under any circumstance. Do keep up.  How many of your sox voted in the thread aaaaauuuussssssiiie? Or do we need to ask the mods that answer?

Thousands skippeeee.  The GMods will tell you.
that doesn't surprise me given the mods have said you run many

Have they?  Where did they say that skippeeee?


Quote:

PS what statements a spectacular inaccuracies,aaaaaauuuussssiiiie?

1.  The Union Jack.
2.  The alleged weet bix competition.  Weet bix were not around in 1901.[/quote]
so I embellished it a little it was won via a competition as I said The Union Jack does not appear on the Irish or Scot flag, Einstein so my comment was true::)
It must suck to be you.[/quote]

Ah....you embellished it.  See, we agree skippeeee!

Quote:

I DO understand what Skippy is saying. Good on you, Skip. Don't let the bastards grind you down.

Thank goodness someone does.  What is skippeeee's model for a republic, nappy.  Can you help us all out here?

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:22pm:

skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 3:08pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 3:01pm: Quote: So what? You have said you favour a Republic and yet voted "N," in the last election because you did not like the offered models.  What is the model you like, skippeee? not the one on offer What is the one on offer, skippeeee? [quote]You have not said anything but an attempt to troll me. I've made one post which asked you a question I knew you would run a mile from because I reckon you are just flapping your gums.  Put some meat on the moans bones skippeeee. i don't answer to to you Indeed you don't.  But one day, you'll have to decide what model you favour instead of taring down the suggestions of others. [quote]Unlike you I don't attempt to run threads based on my belief, I have made it clear while I'm a republican I am not willing to settle for a Republic  under any circumstance. Do keep up.  How many of your sox voted in the thread aaaaauuuussssssiiie? Or do we need to ask the mods that answer? Thousands skippeeee.  The GMods will tell you. that doesn't surprise me given the mods have said you run many Have they?  Where did they say that skippeeee? [quote]PS what statements a spectacular inaccuracies,aaaaaauuuussssiiiie?

1.  The Union Jack.
2.  The alleged weet bix competition.  Weet bix were not around in 1901.[/quote]
so I embellished it a little it was won via a competition as I said The Union Jack does not appear on the Irish or Scot flag, Einstein so my comment was true::)
It must suck to be you.[/quote]

Ah....you embellished it.  See, we agree skippeeee!
[/quote]

STOP TROLLING SKIPPY, arsie!!!

Since when did asking obvious questions and making the most obvious comments constitute 'trolling?'

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:25pm:

Quote: I DO understand what Skippy is saying. Good on you, Skip. Don't let the bastards grind you down. Thank goodness someone does.  What is skippeeee's model for a republic, nappy.  Can you help us all out here?

STOP TROLLING

The mods say you run multiple sox Aussie you even started a whine post about it and whined to FD seeking a public apology. ;D ;D ;D
I have said I am a republican I don't need to explain In detail anything to you or anyone else.
I have said enough that someone with an IQ over 48 could work out my basic beliefs. If I'm ever voted the head of the Republican Party I'll share my beliefs in full with you arrrrrssssssiiiiie.
A competition was run to design the flag, me saying it was a weetbix completion was to add some humour, something a sad.... Like you would never understand.

Neferti wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 3:25pm: Quote: I DO understand what Skippy is saying. Good on you, Skip. Don't let the bastards grind you down. Thank goodness someone does.  What is skippeeee's model for a republic, nappy.  Can you help us all out here? STOP TROLLING

Were my questions too difficult?  Is that it, nappy?  Help us out here.

Neferti wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 3:25pm: Quote: I DO understand what Skippy is saying. Good on you, Skip. Don't let the bastards grind you down. Thank goodness someone does.  What is skippeeee's model for a republic, nappy.  Can you help us all out here? STOP TROLLING

OK...  if you deny TROLLING, call it FLAMING. Do you understand that Internet Term, arsie?

I am sure that everybody else around these parts does.  ;)

skippy. wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:34pm:

The mods say tou run multiple sox Aussie you even started a whine post about it and whined to FD seeking a public apology. ;D ;D ;D

Oh dear.  Not at all old boy.  Neither they did that, nor I do that skippeeeeee.  Have you had a big day?  Tired and emotional, or something?  Why ruin a good thread over such matters skippeeeee?



Quote:

I have said I am a republican I don't need to explain In detail anything to you're anyone else. I have said enough that someone with an IQ over 48 could work out my basic beliefs. If I'm ever voted the head of the Republican Party I'll share my beliefs in full with you arrrrrssssssiiiiie.

Well that's unlikely to happen skippeeee, unless you tell the voters what your beliefs are.


Quote:

A competition was run to design the flag by saying it was a weetbix completion was to add some humour, something a sad.... Like you would never understand.

Ah........humour.

Quote:

OK...  if you deny TROLLING, call it FLAMING . Do you understand that Internet Term, arsie? I am sure that everybody else around these parts does.

Ah.....so becoming part of a debate (which is what I thought was the basic idea around these parts,) asking questions and commenting is...............flaming, not trolling.  Phew, thank goodness we cleared that up, nappy.  It's a jolly good thing you were here to help skippeeee out.

What should I do nappy dear?  Not ask questions or make comments.  Or should I ask easier questions and more simple comments?

You decide.  It's up to you now.

if it ait broke..

don't fix it..

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:45pm:

Quote: OK...  if you deny TROLLING, call it FLAMING . Do you understand that Internet Term, arsie? I am sure that everybody else around these parts does. Ah.....so becoming part of a debate (which is what I thought was the basic idea around these parts,) asking questions and commenting is...............flaming, not trolling.  Phew, thank goodness we cleared that up, nappy.  It's a jolly good thing you were here to help skippeeee out. What should I do nappy dear?  Not ask questions or make comments.  Or should I ask easier questions and more simple comments? You decide.  It's up to you now.

Don't come here and try and turn this thread into a thread about you.
I've posted proof of your sooking in extremist whines where it belongs. :-?
Sorry to those that want to discuss the Republic but Aussie as usual only wants to discuss auuuusssssiiiieee. :-?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 7:02am:

Name one thing that will make life better personally (compared to now) in some way for you personally if we become a republic, and I'll vote for one. Something that will make YOUR life better, or a new freedom. Note: an Australian head of state is not an applicable answer as we already pretty much have one called the Prime Minister.

Firstly, you will not vote for anything that isn't dictated to you by the liberal party ... making life better appears to be totally irrelevant to your position

Secondly, The PM is not the head of state, the governor general is.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:54pm:

if it ait broke.. don't fix it..

Totally agree.

It's a race of egos to see who will go down in history as being the one to bring about significant change and/or be our first President.

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:45pm:

Quote: OK...  if you deny TROLLING, call it FLAMING . Do you understand that Internet Term, arsie? I am sure that everybody else around these parts does. Ah.....so becoming part of a debate (which is what I thought was the basic idea around these parts,) asking questions and commenting is...............flaming, not trolling.  Phew, thank goodness we cleared that up, nappy.  It's a jolly good thing you were here to help skippeeee out. What should I do nappy dear?  Not ask questions or make comments.  Or should I ask easier questions and more simple comments? You decide.  It's up to you now.

levati dalle palle

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:54pm:

if it ait broke.. don't fix it..

It is broke, though.

That's the problem, and that's why we will become a Republic.

skippy. wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:57pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 3:45pm: Quote: OK...  if you deny TROLLING, call it FLAMING . Do you understand that Internet Term, arsie? I am sure that everybody else around these parts does. Ah.....so becoming part of a debate (which is what I thought was the basic idea around these parts,) asking questions and commenting is...............flaming, not trolling.  Phew, thank goodness we cleared that up, nappy.  It's a jolly good thing you were here to help skippeeee out. What should I do nappy dear?  Not ask questions or make comments.  Or should I ask easier questions and more simple comments? You decide.  It's up to you now. Don't come here and try and turn this thread into a thread about you. I've posted proof of your sooking in extremist whines where it belongs. :-? Sorry to those that want to discuss the Republic but Aussie as usual only wants to discuss auuuusssssiiiieee. :-?

Not at all skippeeee.  We are all interested to read what your suggested model is, (that's hardly about me.......and who raised something about 'socks?  Oh yeas, that was you making it about me, wasn't it skippeee,)  given you support that Australia become a republic.   So far, you have done everything to make it about me, and you have offered................nada which takes us beyond your skeletal comment that you support a republic.  "Put some meat on those moans bones, skippeeee."

It is nearly twenty years since we had the last public discussion on this issue its about time the current PM put it back on the table.

Black Orchid wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 3:58pm:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 3:54pm: if it ait broke.. don't fix it.. Totally agree. It's a race of egos to see who will go down in history as being the one to bring about significant change and/or be our first President.

I doubt that you (or I) will be alive to see it, but our children's kids, kids will. It's inevitable. Plus more plausible than finding "human life" on Mars.  :)

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:05pm:

skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 3:57pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 3:45pm: Quote: OK...  if you deny TROLLING, call it FLAMING . Do you understand that Internet Term, arsie? I am sure that everybody else around these parts does. Ah.....so becoming part of a debate (which is what I thought was the basic idea around these parts,) asking questions and commenting is...............flaming, not trolling.  Phew, thank goodness we cleared that up, nappy.  It's a jolly good thing you were here to help skippeeee out. What should I do nappy dear?  Not ask questions or make comments.  Or should I ask easier questions and more simple comments? You decide.  It's up to you now. Don't come here and try and turn this thread into a thread about you. I've posted proof of your sooking in extremist whines where it belongs. :-? Sorry to those that want to discuss the Republic but Aussie as usual only wants to discuss auuuusssssiiiieee. :-? Not at all skippeeee.  We are all interested to read what your suggested model is, (that's hardly about me.......and who raised something about 'socks?  Oh yeas, that was you making it about me, wasn't it skippeee,)  given you support that Australia become a republic.   So far, you have done everything to make it about me, and you have offered................nada which takes us beyond your skeletal comment that you support a republic.  "Put some meat on those moans bones, skippeeee."

and who raised something about 'socks

The socks model is the one we voted on last time, it is the model where the politicians get to select their sock as El President'e and the people have no input.

IMO the worst option and the only one the politicians will accept.

No thank you.
I do not want us to become a Republic.

I just heard Turnbull on the radio,,, sounded like he was pouring some cold water on the push for a Republic.

Perhaps Abbot deciding to stay on in Canberra may have something to do with it.

IMO the worst option and the only one the politicians will accept.

Thats what I was trying to explain to Skippy

miketrees wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:12pm:

I just heard Turnbull on the radio,,, sounded like he was pouring some cold water on the push for a Republic. Perhaps Abbot deciding to stay on in Canberra may have something to do with it.

Now there is nothing in it for him.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:12pm:

No thank you. I do not want us to become a Republic.

Most of us don't but, eventually, the next generation or the one after that will decide and most of us will be long gone.

Now there is nothing in it for him.

Perzactly,, he is PM and he will not want anything changing.

Quote:

The socks model is the one we voted on last time, it is the model where the politicians get to select their sock as El President'e and the people have no imput.

I can't remember.  I could do a google...but not necessary to my point of view about that.  Hayseed gave us options and neither had the support of the States or the Opposition (if I recall.)  It was like Armpits polls here.  Designed to ensure it was rejected, or driven in one direction.

(Politically) making this inevitable change will not be easy. 

Could it be this whole republic nonsense is just another manifestation of Australia's cultural cringe.

Could it just be we already have the best system.

Neferti wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:16pm:

Most of us don't but,

actually, most of us do ... the only reason the referendum was voted down the last time was because of the model that had been proposed ....

miketrees wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:19pm:

Could it be this whole republic nonsense is just another manifestation of Australia's cultural cringe. Could it just be we already have the best system.

No.

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:18pm:

Quote: The socks model is the one we voted on last time, it is the model where the politicians get to select their sock as El President'e and the people have no imput. I can't remember.  I could do a google...but not necessary to my point of view about that.  Hayseed gave us options and neither had the support of the States or the Opposition (if I recall.)  It was like Armpits polls here.  Designed to ensure it was rejected, or driven in one direction. (Politically) making this inevitable change will not be easy.

miketrees wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:19pm:

Could it be this whole republic nonsense is just another manifestation of Australia's cultural cringe. Could it just be we already have the best system.

Absolutely nothing wrong with the current model.
An elected Government with a head of state above politics.

Stable, historical to our UK heritage and perfectly fine.

Spend a load of money to change a system that isn't broken?
No thanks.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 2:07pm:

issuevoter wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:03pm: I want a President by popular election. Our current Head of State isn't elected. You want our Republic's HOS to be elected by a popular vote, but you have no problem with the current HOS being born into the position. Why is that?

I don't really understand what you mean by "having no problem" with HOS etc. If you consider Queen Elizabeth the HOS you are stretching a point. She doesn't have any control over Australia legislation. It seems you are nit-picking. The British Crown's part in Australian government has been slowly eroded since 1901. The nominal position that the monarch holds in Australia today is something we have inherited. I don't think accepting that reality is a matter of "having no problem." You can vote for any republic on offer if you wish, but we will only get one shot at it. I will vote for a republic that specifically meets my expectation, none other.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:24pm:

Absolutely nothing wrong with the current model. An elected Government with a head of state above politics.

If you like it so much, you should petition for the poms to do the same, have a pommie PM with a head of state from a different country.  :D :D :D :D

Maybe they can make Abbott their king?

issuevoter wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:25pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:07pm: issuevoter wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:03pm: I want a President by popular election. Our current Head of State isn't elected. You want our Republic's HOS to be elected by a popular vote, but you have no problem with the current HOS being born into the position. Why is that? I don't really understand what you mean by "having no problem" with HOS etc. If you consider Queen Elizabeth the HOS you are stretching a point. She doesn't have any control over Australia legislation. It seems you are nit-picking. The British Crown's part in Australian government has been slowly eroded since 1901. The nominal position that the monarch holds in Australia today is something we have inherited. I don't think accepting that reality is a matter of "having no problem." You can vote for any republic on offer if you wish, but we will only get one shot at it. I will vote for a republic that specifically meets my expectation, none other.

Mr I. Voter, what would we have if "Cosgrove" (the Sovereign) refused to sign off on a piece of legislation?

miketrees wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:19pm:

Could it be this whole republic nonsense is just another manifestation of Australia's cultural cringe. Could it just be we already have the best system.

I think you are probably right. certainly better than any republic model that has been considered.

People seem to want to fix things that are not broken when we don't have the funds to fix the things that are in a mess.

John Smith wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:20pm:

Neferti wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 4:16pm: Most of us don't but, actually, most of us do ... the only reason the referendum was voted down the last time was because of the model that had been proposed ....

Did I say I was one of the "most" who "don't"?  ;)

I voted YES in 1996. However, Howard's idea of the PM "selecting" The President is wrong.  IF we are going to become a Republic we MUST have the PEOPLE vote for The President ... and get rid of the Prime Minister function ... we already have too many levels of "government".

Neferti wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:29pm:

However, Howard's idea of the PM "selecting" The President is wrong.

and he knew it.... his only reason for putting that model forward was because he wanted it to fail

John Smith wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:31pm:

Neferti wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 4:29pm: However, Howard's idea of the PM "selecting" The President is wrong. and he knew it.... his only reason for putting that model forward was because he wanted it to fail

Obviously. Turncoat isn't about to push it, again, though.  He has to be VOTED IN as PM before he even tries doing something like that.

Turncoat will NOT get my vote ...  :-*

Neferti wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 4:31pm: Neferti wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 4:29pm: However, Howard's idea of the PM "selecting" The President is wrong. and he knew it.... his only reason for putting that model forward was because he wanted it to fail Obviously. Turncoat isn't about to push it, again, though.  He has to be VOTED IN as PM before he even tries doing something like that. Turncoat will NOT get my vote ...  :-*

I take it he hasnt done anything to make you change your mind...

what I see of him hes weak as water.another krudd all hes interested in is being popular..

Neferti wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 4:31pm: Neferti wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 4:29pm: However, Howard's idea of the PM "selecting" The President is wrong. and he knew it.... his only reason for putting that model forward was because he wanted it to fail Obviously. Turncoat isn't about to push it, again, though.  He has to be VOTED IN as PM before he even tries doing something like that. Turncoat will NOT get my vote ...  :-*

If you're not in his electorate, you don't get the opportunity to vote for him.

Australia doesn't need to be a republic.
It can be also Parliamentarian monarchy but with own (not foreign) monarch.

I reckon it boils down to a couple of questions.  What do we want (assuming the Monarchy is booted, and the Parliamentary position is left unaltered...with a PM etc as we have now?)

1.  A purely ceremonial figure-head.
2.  A ceremonial figurehead with some declared/clearly defined power to exercise political influence on rare occasions.....and on what rare occasions.

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:28pm:

issuevoter wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 4:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:07pm: issuevoter wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:03pm: I want a President by popular election. Our current Head of State isn't elected. You want our Republic's HOS to be elected by a popular vote, but you have no problem with the current HOS being born into the position. Why is that? I don't really understand what you mean by "having no problem" with HOS etc. If you consider Queen Elizabeth the HOS you are stretching a point. She doesn't have any control over Australia legislation. It seems you are nit-picking. The British Crown's part in Australian government has been slowly eroded since 1901. The nominal position that the monarch holds in Australia today is something we have inherited. I don't think accepting that reality is a matter of "having no problem." You can vote for any republic on offer if you wish, but we will only get one shot at it. I will vote for a republic that specifically meets my expectation, none other. Mr I. Voter, what would we have if "Cosgrove" (the Sovereign) refused to sign off on a piece of legislation?

Continue your train of thought. The Republic issue is complex. Arch republicans just want a republic at any price, and they don't want people to consider the matter too carefully. Not being a constitutional lawyer, I would have thought your "Cosgrove" would need to justify himself legally.

cods wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:36pm:

Neferti wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 4:34pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 4:31pm: Neferti wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 4:29pm: However, Howard's idea of the PM "selecting" The President is wrong. and he knew it.... his only reason for putting that model forward was because he wanted it to fail Obviously. Turncoat isn't about to push it, again, though.  He has to be VOTED IN as PM before he even tries doing something like that. Turncoat will NOT get my vote ...  :-* I take it he hasnt done anything to make you change your mind... what I see of him hes weak as water.another krudd all hes interested in is being popular..

One positive thing about Turnbull, is that he at least looks  and acts like a statesman.

It's not much, but it's a lot more than the last loser had.

skippy. wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:10pm:

It is nearly twenty years since we had the last public discussion on this issue its about time the current PM put it back on the table.

Referendums are costly and before we have yet another referendum on becoming a republic or one on same sex marriage we need to have one on immigration as that will  definitely influence the direction we are heading more than anything else.

Black Orchid wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:46pm:

skippy. wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 4:10pm: It is nearly twenty years since we had the last public discussion on this issue its about time the current PM put it back on the table. Referendums are costly and before we have yet another referendum on becoming a republic or one on same sex marriage we need to have one on immigration as that will  definitely influence the direction we are heading more than anything else.

What question(s) do you envisage?

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:39pm:

I reckon it boils down to a couple of questions.  What do we want (assuming the Monarchy is booted, and the Parliamentary position is left unaltered...with a PM etc as we have now?) 1.  A purely ceremonial figure-head. 2.  A ceremonial figurehead with some declared/clearly defined power to exercise political influence on rare occasions.....and on what rare occasions.

WRONG. Totally. WRONG. IF Australia is to become a REPUBLIC (and thus getting rid of the Monarchy) we want to be able to VOTE FOR OUR LEADER ... if he/she is called a President.  No Prime Minister ... just a PRESIDENT ... along the same lines as the USA, minus the hoopla and massive money and years of "electioneering".  Aussies would NEVER put up with political "wanna be" people going on and on for years trying to get our vote ...... 6 weeks is too long for that crap.

So.  NO Prime Minister ... just a  PRESIDENT ... with the power of a PM/GG at the moment. Same type of Government ... HoR and Senate ... MPs and so forth. Presidential term 4 years x 2. So we would end up with a Liberal PRESIDENT for 4 years, initiallly, then maybe an ALP President for 4 years ..... etcetera.

issuevoter wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 4:42pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 4:28pm: issuevoter wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 4:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:07pm: issuevoter wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 2:03pm: I want a President by popular election. Our current Head of State isn't elected. You want our Republic's HOS to be elected by a popular vote, but you have no problem with the current HOS being born into the position. Why is that? I don't really understand what you mean by "having no problem" with HOS etc. If you consider Queen Elizabeth the HOS you are stretching a point. She doesn't have any control over Australia legislation. It seems you are nit-picking. The British Crown's part in Australian government has been slowly eroded since 1901. The nominal position that the monarch holds in Australia today is something we have inherited. I don't think accepting that reality is a matter of "having no problem." You can vote for any republic on offer if you wish, but we will only get one shot at it. I will vote for a republic that specifically meets my expectation, none other. Mr I. Voter, what would we have if "Cosgrove" (the Sovereign) refused to sign off on a piece of legislation? Continue your train of thought. The Republic issue is complex. Arch republicans just want a republic at any price, and they don't want people to consider the matter too carefully. Not being a constitutional lawyer, I would have thought your "Cosgrove" would need to justify himself legally.

He might say....."Sorry, too busy, I'm going sailing."  What then happens?  (BTW.............I am no expert, and never have been, on anything to do with the Constitution.)

Neferti wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 5:01pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 4:39pm: I reckon it boils down to a couple of questions.  What do we want (assuming the Monarchy is booted, and the Parliamentary position is left unaltered...with a PM etc as we have now?) 1.  A purely ceremonial figure-head. 2.  A ceremonial figurehead with some declared/clearly defined power to exercise political influence on rare occasions.....and on what rare occasions. WRONG. Totally. WRONG. IF Australia is to become a REPUBLIC (and thus getting rid of the Monarchy) we want to be able to VOTE

Sheesh!  Everyone gets to vote on any change to the Constitution!  Baby steps, nappy.  One step at a time.  Which of # 1 and 2 do you want?

When we get passed that threshold question, there is the next one.  How are they appointed/elected.

If other countries are any indication, the first real issue to confront the Republic of Australia will be corruption.

issuevoter wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 5:08pm:

If other countries are any indication, the first real issue to confront the Republic of Australia will be corruption.

We already have that, so no big deal.

Neferti wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 5:01pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 4:39pm: I reckon it boils down to a couple of questions.  What do we want (assuming the Monarchy is booted, and the Parliamentary position is left unaltered...with a PM etc as we have now?) 1.  A purely ceremonial figure-head. 2.  A ceremonial figurehead with some declared/clearly defined power to exercise political influence on rare occasions.....and on what rare occasions. WRONG. Totally. WRONG. IF Australia is to become a REPUBLIC (and thus getting rid of the Monarchy) we want to be able to VOTE

we should first have a vote on republic or not, so that the matter is settled, with the particular model to be voted upon at a later stage.

There's no need to rush it, tie the referendums in with elections if it means we save money. Decide the one question in conjunction with one election, decide on the model at the next one.

John Smith wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 5:11pm:

Neferti wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 5:01pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 26th, 2016 at 4:39pm: I reckon it boils down to a couple of questions.  What do we want (assuming the Monarchy is booted, and the Parliamentary position is left unaltered...with a PM etc as we have now?) 1.  A purely ceremonial figure-head. 2.  A ceremonial figurehead with some declared/clearly defined power to exercise political influence on rare occasions.....and on what rare occasions. WRONG. Totally. WRONG. IF Australia is to become a REPUBLIC (and thus getting rid of the Monarchy) we want to be able to VOTE we should first have a vote on republic or not, so that the matter is settled, with the particular model to be voted upon at a later stage. There's no need to rush it, tie the referendums in with elections if it means we save money. Decide the one question in conjunction with one election, decide on the model at the next one.

Yep, good point.

First, a referendum: "Should Australia become a Republic in 2020?" Simple.

Then (if the answer is 'yes'), Geoffrey Robertson draws up alternative Constitutions.

Then, we vote on the model and Constitution we want.