Australian Politics Forum - An Australian republic

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 150914
Gender: male

Re: An Australian republic
Reply #90 - Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:34pm

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 61333
Here
Gender: male

Re: An Australian republic
Reply #91 - Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:38pm

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

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 150914
Gender: male

Re: An Australian republic
Reply #92 - Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:44pm

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

Swagman

Gold Member

Offline

Beware of cheap imitations......

Posts: 15095
Illawarra NSW
Gender: male

Re: An Australian republic
Reply #93 - Jan 26^th, 2016 at 12:48pm

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 28516
Gender: male

Re: An Australian republic
Reply #94 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 28516
Gender: male

Re: An Australian republic
Reply #95 - Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:17pm

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

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

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).

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 150914
Gender: male

Re: An Australian republic
Reply #96 - Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:25pm

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

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

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

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.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

skippy.

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20882
Gender: male

Re: An Australian republic
Reply #97 - Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:26pm

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

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!!!

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.

Back to top

freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: An Australian republic
Reply #98 - Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:30pm

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.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20171
Gender: male

Re: An Australian republic
Reply #99 - Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:36pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: An Australian republic
Reply #100 - 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.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

skippy.

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20882
Gender: male

Re: An Australian republic
Reply #101 - Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:42pm

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.

Back to top

freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below

IP Logged

miketrees

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6492
Gender: male

Re: An Australian republic
Reply #102 - 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)

Back to top

IP Logged

skippy.

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20882
Gender: male

Re: An Australian republic
Reply #103 - Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:45pm

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.

Back to top

freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below

IP Logged

bogarde73 Gold Member Offline Anti-Global & Contra Mundum Posts: 18443 Gender:	Re: An Australian republic Reply #104 - 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.
Back to top	Know the enemies of a civil society by their public behaviour, by their fraudulent claim to be liberal-progressive, by their propensity to lie and, above all, by their attachment to authoritarianism. IP Logged

Poll
Question: Do you support a republic
Yes 13 (36.1%) No 14 (38.9%) Yes, but with conditions 9 (25.0%) No because the coins cost too much to change 0 (0.0%) Total votes: 36 « Created by: skippy. on: Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:06am »