Australian Politics Forum - South Australia should secede....

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

South Australia should secede....
Oct 6^th, 2016 at 1:20pm

As all South Australians know, we have a unique history as being the only free settler Colony in Australia. We are also known for our British accents, and are the only State capital city in Australia to be named after a King or Queen.

But, in truth, we have been shafted by Canberra, who doesn't give two hoots about us. Therefore, I propose that we secede from Australia and become a British Overseas Territory as a self-governing dominion under London. The ability to manage our own affairs will make SA stronger, more prosperous and more of a global player.

We, South Australians, are too good for the Commonwealth of Australia. We deserve better: we deserve to be British, and we deserve to reassert our own identity as the enlightened Colony of the British Empire.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #1 - Oct 6^th, 2016 at 1:29pm

Auggie wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 1:20pm:

As all South Australians know, we have a unique history as being the only free settler Colony in Australia. We are also known for our British accents, and are the only State capital city in Australia to be named after a King or Queen.

But, in truth, we have been shafted by Canberra, who doesn't give two hoots about us. Therefore, I propose that we secede from Australia and become a British Overseas Territory as a self-governing dominion under London. The ability to manage our own affairs will make SA stronger, more prosperous and more of a global player.

We, South Australians, are too good for the Commonwealth of Australia. We deserve better: we deserve to be British, and we deserve to reassert our own identity as the enlightened Colony of the British Empire.

I would vote to get rid of you South Australians as a liability on all other Australians. You can call yourself Closet Pommie Land.

The only profitable use for South Australia is as a nuclear waste dump and a toxic waste dump.

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #2 - Oct 6^th, 2016 at 1:49pm

Unforgiven wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 1:29pm:

Auggie wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 1:20pm:

As all South Australians know, we have a unique history as being the only free settler Colony in Australia. We are also known for our British accents, and are the only State capital city in Australia to be named after a King or Queen.

But, in truth, we have been shafted by Canberra, who doesn't give two hoots about us. Therefore, I propose that we secede from Australia and become a British Overseas Territory as a self-governing dominion under London. The ability to manage our own affairs will make SA stronger, more prosperous and more of a global player.

We, South Australians, are too good for the Commonwealth of Australia. We deserve better: we deserve to be British, and we deserve to reassert our own identity as the enlightened Colony of the British Empire.

I would vote to get rid of you South Australians as a liability on all other Australians. You can call yourself Closet Pommie Land.

The only profitable use for South Australia is as a nuclear waste dump and a toxic waste dump.

You're just jealous that we're more civilised than the rest.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 39573

Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #3 - Oct 6^th, 2016 at 3:06pm

Auggie wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 1:20pm:

As all South Australians know, we have a unique history as being the only free settler Colony in Australia. We are also known for our British accents, and are the only State capital city in Australia to be named after a King or Queen.

But, in truth, we have been shafted by Canberra, who doesn't give two hoots about us. Therefore, I propose that we secede from Australia and become a British Overseas Territory as a self-governing dominion under London. The ability to manage our own affairs will make SA stronger, more prosperous and more of a global player.

We, South Australians, are too good for the Commonwealth of Australia. We deserve better: we deserve to be British, and we deserve to reassert our own identity as the enlightened Colony of the British Empire.

Perhaps you'd care to point out where secession is allowed under the Australian Constitution?

So, how well has the West Australian attempt at secession gone?

What is it that you don't understand about the words, "indissoluble union", mmm? Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Unforgiven Gold Member Offline I have sinned Posts: 8879 Gender:	Re: South Australia should secede.... Reply #4 - Oct 6^th, 2016 at 3:09pm Auggie wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 1:49pm: You're just jealous that we're more civilised than the rest. High incidence of homosexuality in South Australia does not make you more civilized.
Back to top	“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16428
Gender: male

Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #5 - Oct 6^th, 2016 at 7:45pm

Auggie wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 1:20pm:

As all South Australians know, we have a unique history as being the only free settler Colony in Australia. We are also known for our British accents, and are the only State capital city in Australia to be named after a King or Queen.

But, in truth, we have been shafted by Canberra, who doesn't give two hoots about us. Therefore, I propose that we secede from Australia and become a British Overseas Territory as a self-governing dominion under London. The ability to manage our own affairs will make SA stronger, more prosperous and more of a global player.

Are you going to generate your own power or import it from Australia? They may charge an export fee. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #6 - Oct 6^th, 2016 at 10:01pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 3:06pm:

Auggie wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 1:20pm:

As all South Australians know, we have a unique history as being the only free settler Colony in Australia. We are also known for our British accents, and are the only State capital city in Australia to be named after a King or Queen.

But, in truth, we have been shafted by Canberra, who doesn't give two hoots about us. Therefore, I propose that we secede from Australia and become a British Overseas Territory as a self-governing dominion under London. The ability to manage our own affairs will make SA stronger, more prosperous and more of a global player.

We, South Australians, are too good for the Commonwealth of Australia. We deserve better: we deserve to be British, and we deserve to reassert our own identity as the enlightened Colony of the British Empire.

Perhaps you'd care to point out where secession is allowed under the Australian Constitution?

So, how well has the West Australian attempt at secession gone?

What is it that you don't understand about the words, "indissoluble union", mmm? Roll Eyes

Technically, indissoluble Union under the Crown. Second of all, anything can be undone, whether it be by legislation or by altering the Constitution if the people of SA were to vote overwhelming in favour of secession, you don't think that would be enough impetus to secede?

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #7 - Oct 6^th, 2016 at 10:02pm

lee wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 7:45pm:

Auggie wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 1:20pm:

As all South Australians know, we have a unique history as being the only free settler Colony in Australia. We are also known for our British accents, and are the only State capital city in Australia to be named after a King or Queen.

But, in truth, we have been shafted by Canberra, who doesn't give two hoots about us. Therefore, I propose that we secede from Australia and become a British Overseas Territory as a self-governing dominion under London. The ability to manage our own affairs will make SA stronger, more prosperous and more of a global player.

Are you going to generate your own power or import it from Australia? They may charge an export fee. Wink

Hey, we're the ones with the uranium. We'll go nuclear.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 16428 Gender:	Re: South Australia should secede.... Reply #8 - Oct 6^th, 2016 at 10:12pm Auggie wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 10:02pm: Hey, we're the ones with the uranium. We'll go nuclear. First off you would need an entire new parliament. It won't happen with the current incumbents.
Back to top	IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #9 - Oct 6^th, 2016 at 11:12pm

lee wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 10:12pm:

Auggie wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 10:02pm:

Hey, we're the ones with the uranium. We'll go nuclear.

First off you would need an entire new parliament. It won't happen with the current incumbents.

Yes, we shall have a House of Commons elected for a 5-year term, and a Senate appointed by Her Majesty the Queen for a single term of nine years.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 39573

Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #10 - Oct 6^th, 2016 at 11:33pm

Auggie wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 10:01pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 3:06pm:

Auggie wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 1:20pm:

As all South Australians know, we have a unique history as being the only free settler Colony in Australia. We are also known for our British accents, and are the only State capital city in Australia to be named after a King or Queen.

But, in truth, we have been shafted by Canberra, who doesn't give two hoots about us. Therefore, I propose that we secede from Australia and become a British Overseas Territory as a self-governing dominion under London. The ability to manage our own affairs will make SA stronger, more prosperous and more of a global player.

We, South Australians, are too good for the Commonwealth of Australia. We deserve better: we deserve to be British, and we deserve to reassert our own identity as the enlightened Colony of the British Empire.

Perhaps you'd care to point out where secession is allowed under the Australian Constitution?

So, how well has the West Australian attempt at secession gone?

What is it that you don't understand about the words, "indissoluble union", mmm? Roll Eyes

Technically, indissoluble Union under the Crown. Second of all, anything can be undone, whether it be by legislation or by altering the Constitution if the people of SA were to vote overwhelming in favour of secession, you don't think that would be enough impetus to secede?

You failed to answer the first and second questions. It will answer your question. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #11 - Oct 6^th, 2016 at 11:44pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 11:33pm:

Auggie wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 10:01pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 3:06pm:

Auggie wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 1:20pm:

As all South Australians know, we have a unique history as being the only free settler Colony in Australia. We are also known for our British accents, and are the only State capital city in Australia to be named after a King or Queen.

But, in truth, we have been shafted by Canberra, who doesn't give two hoots about us. Therefore, I propose that we secede from Australia and become a British Overseas Territory as a self-governing dominion under London. The ability to manage our own affairs will make SA stronger, more prosperous and more of a global player.

We, South Australians, are too good for the Commonwealth of Australia. We deserve better: we deserve to be British, and we deserve to reassert our own identity as the enlightened Colony of the British Empire.

Perhaps you'd care to point out where secession is allowed under the Australian Constitution?

So, how well has the West Australian attempt at secession gone?

What is it that you don't understand about the words, "indissoluble union", mmm? Roll Eyes

Technically, indissoluble Union under the Crown. Second of all, anything can be undone, whether it be by legislation or by altering the Constitution if the people of SA were to vote overwhelming in favour of secession, you don't think that would be enough impetus to secede?

You failed to answer the first and second questions. It will answer your question. Roll Eyes

To be honest, I don't know. The Constitution is silent about secession; it doesn't say anything. Now, we could alter it but that would require 'a majority in the majority of the States'; however, because it is an issue that would affect South Australia solely, I don't think that it would need to go that far. I personally think that if the South Australian people approved the referendum, then arrangements could be made to bring South Australia out of the Federal Commonwealth.

My view is that because we would be moving out of the Commonwealth into the domain of Britain; it would merely be a transfer of power, and thus could be easily achieved by legislation.

Regarding Western Australia, if my memory serves me correctly, there was a question raised about it decades ago, but the British delegation failed to show up. If Britain had showed up and negotiated secession, then there would have been a precedent for the other States to follow.

Just to repeat myself, and to try and run my point home: anything can be undone. It's not like it's forever and ever, amen. Laws and Constitutions can be reversed, altered and repealed. If there's a will, there's way.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 39573

Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #12 - Oct 7^th, 2016 at 6:14pm

Auggie wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 11:44pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 11:33pm:

You failed to answer the first and second questions. It will answer your question. Roll Eyes

To be honest, I don't know. The Constitution is silent about secession; it doesn't say anything. Now, we could alter it but that would require 'a majority in the majority of the States'; however, because it is an issue that would affect South Australia solely, I don't think that it would need to go that far. I personally think that if the South Australian people approved the referendum, then arrangements could be made to bring South Australia out of the Federal Commonwealth.

So, the Constitution discusses an "indissoluble union" in it but there is nothing in it about secession? Doesn't that rather indicated that once you join the Federation there is no way out of the Federation except through armed insurrection? That would indicate to any person who supports the "Rule of Law" that succession is not to be considered?

Quote:

My view is that because we would be moving out of the Commonwealth into the domain of Britain; it would merely be a transfer of power, and thus could be easily achieved by legislation.

Which the Federal Government has no power, according to the Constitution to pass... Roll Eyes

Quote:

Regarding Western Australia, if my memory serves me correctly, there was a question raised about it decades ago, but the British delegation failed to show up. If Britain had showed up and negotiated secession, then there would have been a precedent for the other States to follow.

You might like to acquaint yourself with what happened in Western Australia over the issue of succession...

Remember what "indissoluble union" means? Roll Eyes

Quote:

Just to repeat myself, and to try and run my point home: anything can be undone. It's not like it's forever and ever, amen. Laws and Constitutions can be reversed, altered and repealed. If there's a will, there's way.

Yes there is, if it is legally possible. Our Constitution only mentions an, "indissoluble union" . It does not mention "succession" at all. Therefore, it is at the present moment, without a Constitutional referendum impossible. Once you're in, you're in, forever.

You could declare succession but when the ADF appears at the border, you'd better have some weapons a'la Syria and Iraq to break away. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #13 - Oct 7^th, 2016 at 6:39pm

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7^th, 2016 at 6:14pm:

Auggie wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 11:44pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 11:33pm:

You failed to answer the first and second questions. It will answer your question. Roll Eyes

To be honest, I don't know. The Constitution is silent about secession; it doesn't say anything. Now, we could alter it but that would require 'a majority in the majority of the States'; however, because it is an issue that would affect South Australia solely, I don't think that it would need to go that far. I personally think that if the South Australian people approved the referendum, then arrangements could be made to bring South Australia out of the Federal Commonwealth.

So, the Constitution discusses an "indissoluble union" in it but there is nothing in it about secession? Doesn't that rather indicated that once you join the Federation there is no way out of the Federation except through armed insurrection? That would indicate to any person who supports the "Rule of Law" that succession is not to be considered?

Quote:

My view is that because we would be moving out of the Commonwealth into the domain of Britain; it would merely be a transfer of power, and thus could be easily achieved by legislation.

Which the Federal Government has no power, according to the Constitution to pass... Roll Eyes

Quote:

Regarding Western Australia, if my memory serves me correctly, there was a question raised about it decades ago, but the British delegation failed to show up. If Britain had showed up and negotiated secession, then there would have been a precedent for the other States to follow.

You might like to acquaint yourself with what happened in Western Australia over the issue of succession...

Remember what "indissoluble union" means? Roll Eyes

Quote:

Just to repeat myself, and to try and run my point home: anything can be undone. It's not like it's forever and ever, amen. Laws and Constitutions can be reversed, altered and repealed. If there's a will, there's way.

Yes there is, if it is legally possible. Our Constitution only mentions an, "indissoluble union" . It does not mention "succession" at all. Therefore, it is at the present moment, without a Constitutional referendum impossible. Once you're in, you're in, forever.

You could declare succession but when the ADF appears at the border, you'd better have some weapons a'la Syria and Iraq to break away. Roll Eyes

By that argument, you could argue that becoming a Republic is impossible, because of one indissoluble Union 'under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland....' Our Constitution does not mention 'Republic.' Once you're in the Crown, you're in the crown, forever, by that logic.

Second, dissolution would only be feasible if the majority of the people of the South Australia wanted it, which nearly everyone in SA doesn't want; at least two-thirds of the population would have to agree in order for it to be considered seriously - a fickle majority wouldn't be acceptable. However, I think that there would be more people in SA who would want it than in the other States, albeit by a number of 100 or so.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 39573

Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #14 - Oct 7^th, 2016 at 7:03pm

Auggie wrote on Oct 7^th, 2016 at 6:39pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7^th, 2016 at 6:14pm:

Auggie wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 11:44pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6^th, 2016 at 11:33pm:

You failed to answer the first and second questions. It will answer your question. Roll Eyes

To be honest, I don't know. The Constitution is silent about secession; it doesn't say anything. Now, we could alter it but that would require 'a majority in the majority of the States'; however, because it is an issue that would affect South Australia solely, I don't think that it would need to go that far. I personally think that if the South Australian people approved the referendum, then arrangements could be made to bring South Australia out of the Federal Commonwealth.

So, the Constitution discusses an "indissoluble union" in it but there is nothing in it about secession? Doesn't that rather indicated that once you join the Federation there is no way out of the Federation except through armed insurrection? That would indicate to any person who supports the "Rule of Law" that succession is not to be considered?

Quote:

My view is that because we would be moving out of the Commonwealth into the domain of Britain; it would merely be a transfer of power, and thus could be easily achieved by legislation.

Which the Federal Government has no power, according to the Constitution to pass... Roll Eyes

Quote:

Regarding Western Australia, if my memory serves me correctly, there was a question raised about it decades ago, but the British delegation failed to show up. If Britain had showed up and negotiated secession, then there would have been a precedent for the other States to follow.

You might like to acquaint yourself with what happened in Western Australia over the issue of succession...

Remember what "indissoluble union" means? Roll Eyes

Quote:

Just to repeat myself, and to try and run my point home: anything can be undone. It's not like it's forever and ever, amen. Laws and Constitutions can be reversed, altered and repealed. If there's a will, there's way.

Yes there is, if it is legally possible. Our Constitution only mentions an, "indissoluble union" . It does not mention "succession" at all. Therefore, it is at the present moment, without a Constitutional referendum impossible. Once you're in, you're in, forever.

You could declare succession but when the ADF appears at the border, you'd better have some weapons a'la Syria and Iraq to break away. Roll Eyes

By that argument, you could argue that becoming a Republic is impossible, because of one indissoluble Union 'under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland....' Our Constitution does not mention 'Republic.' Once you're in the Crown, you're in the crown, forever, by that logic.

Second, dissolution would only be feasible if the majority of the people of the South Australia wanted it, which nearly everyone in SA doesn't want; at least two-thirds of the population would have to agree in order for it to be considered seriously - a fickle majority wouldn't be acceptable. However, I think that there would be more people in SA who would want it than in the other States, albeit by a number of 100 or so.

With a referendum, anything is possible. We can leave the crown and become a republic, with a referendum to alter the Constitution. You, OTOH, feel that referendums and constitutional change are unnecessary. I wonder why? Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged