I agree, but I don't think we'll cut the apron strings any time soon, we have an overwhelming amount of English immigrants here., and they won't be voting for independence. It probably wouldn't make much difference anyway, we are bombarded by all things American too.

We haven't got our own identity yet, so we have to tag along with the big boys.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 5:16am:




i disagree with that I am of English origin and I voted yes at the referendum.. sick of the whingeing to be honest...

but I didnt like the 64 constitution amendments that we were kept in the dark about...but I am sure most that voted yes couldnt care less about those.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 7:12am:


It has nothing to do with Monarchy v Republicism. It is all about our obsession with celebrity

I would have argued against FD's point, in the past, when I thought that becoming a Republic would have been valid just for the sake of declaring our own new, and independent identity, as a modern, multicultural nation, in the Asian/Pacific region.

Having seen the recent federal election saga, so calmly managed, due to our political system, and traditions, I would now have to agree with him, that any model for change, would have to at the absolute minimum, guarantee that we were not diminishing any of the standards that we now enjoy, and preferably be able to display areas of improvement, to make it worth our while, to make such a change.

Quote:


From what I have seen from the republicans so far, no. They seem to think the label republic is the most important thing. Hence the referendum debacle. Even your response confirms this. You are not telling me that the proposed system is as good. Instead you are hoping that whatever they come up with will be.

Quote:


Not really. That is the whole point of our system. That is what is supposed to happen.

Or maybe not.

We do not elect the PM. We elect a local rep. It is their job to do this. The idea that the PM's job is somehow more sacred than the people we actually elect is silly. Concentrating a lot of power in the hands of one person may seem like a good idea because it keeps things simple, but it is not how you achieve stable government.

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 4:58pm:

Yet I'd bet the majority (of those not rusted on) vote based on their expectations of who will be the nation's PM.

Stable government is not guaranteed by the ability of Parliamentarians to dismiss, for any reason, the head of government. In the case of Rudd, disagreeable as he may be, was removed for opportunistic reasons and not necessarily for the good of the nation, as good for the Labor Party.