Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
South Australia should secede.... (Read 5349 times)
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
South Australia should secede....
Oct 6th, 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 6th, 2016 at 1:29pm
 
Auggie wrote on Oct 6th, 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 6th, 2016 at 1:49pm
 
Unforgiven wrote on Oct 6th, 2016 at 1:29pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 6th, 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: 39377
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #3 - Oct 6th, 2016 at 3:06pm
 
Auggie wrote on Oct 6th, 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 Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Unforgiven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #4 - Oct 6th, 2016 at 3:09pm
 
Auggie wrote on Oct 6th, 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: 16343
Gender: male
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #5 - Oct 6th, 2016 at 7:45pm
 
Auggie wrote on Oct 6th, 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 6th, 2016 at 10:01pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6th, 2016 at 3:06pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 6th, 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 6th, 2016 at 10:02pm
 
lee wrote on Oct 6th, 2016 at 7:45pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 6th, 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: 16343
Gender: male
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #8 - Oct 6th, 2016 at 10:12pm
 
Auggie wrote on Oct 6th, 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 6th, 2016 at 11:12pm
 
lee wrote on Oct 6th, 2016 at 10:12pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 6th, 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: 39377
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #10 - Oct 6th, 2016 at 11:33pm
 
Auggie wrote on Oct 6th, 2016 at 10:01pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6th, 2016 at 3:06pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 6th, 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 Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #11 - Oct 6th, 2016 at 11:44pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6th, 2016 at 11:33pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 6th, 2016 at 10:01pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6th, 2016 at 3:06pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 6th, 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: 39377
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #12 - Oct 7th, 2016 at 6:14pm
 
Auggie wrote on Oct 6th, 2016 at 11:44pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6th, 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 Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #13 - Oct 7th, 2016 at 6:39pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 6:14pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 6th, 2016 at 11:44pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6th, 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: 39377
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #14 - Oct 7th, 2016 at 7:03pm
 
Auggie wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 6:39pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 6:14pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 6th, 2016 at 11:44pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6th, 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 Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #15 - Oct 7th, 2016 at 7:19pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 7:03pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 6:39pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 6:14pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 6th, 2016 at 11:44pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Oct 6th, 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


Haven't I spent the most of my posts writing about constitutional reform in Australia? The 4-year term; Senate reform; reform of the Federation, etc.?

Second, having a referendum to become a Republic doesn't actually change the status of the States. The States can still remain under the Queen, whilst the Commonwealth is a Republic. So, does this mean that we will have republican flag, but a Union Jack on each State flag?
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39377
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #16 - Oct 7th, 2016 at 9:34pm
 
Auggie wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 7:19pm:
Haven't I spent the most of my posts writing about constitutional reform in Australia? The 4-year term; Senate reform; reform of the Federation, etc.?


Yes you have but always at the legislative level, not at the referendum level.  I find that interesting.

Quote:
Second, having a referendum to become a Republic doesn't actually change the status of the States. The States can still remain under the Queen, whilst the Commonwealth is a Republic. So, does this mean that we will have republican flag, but a Union Jack on each State flag?


Don't see why not.   The States however might find the wave of Revolution too great to withstand...   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 Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #17 - Oct 7th, 2016 at 9:39pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 9:34pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 7:19pm:
Haven't I spent the most of my posts writing about constitutional reform in Australia? The 4-year term; Senate reform; reform of the Federation, etc.?


Yes you have but always at the legislative level, not at the referendum level.  I find that interesting.

Quote:
Second, having a referendum to become a Republic doesn't actually change the status of the States. The States can still remain under the Queen, whilst the Commonwealth is a Republic. So, does this mean that we will have republican flag, but a Union Jack on each State flag?


Don't see why not.   The States however might find the wave of Revolution too great to withstand...   Roll Eyes


Any proposal I put forward would have to approved by the people. The best way to do it would be to have the people vote on a new Constitution, voting yes or no for the whole thing as opposed having each individual provision approved.

In the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of the Republic) Bill 1999, there was a provision in the Bill which stated that even after becoming a republic, the States would still 'retain' the right to have links to the Crown unless the laws were changed in accordance with their Constitution.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39377
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #18 - Oct 7th, 2016 at 10:01pm
 
Auggie wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 9:39pm:
Any proposal I put forward would have to approved by the people. The best way to do it would be to have the people vote on a new Constitution, voting yes or no for the whole thing as opposed having each individual provision approved.


The majority of the people in the majority of the states, right?   That is how referendums work under the Constitution yet we see you claiming that only South Australia has to vote.  How do you work out that contradiction?  Mmm?   Roll Eyes

Quote:
In the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of the Republic) Bill 1999, there was a provision in the Bill which stated that even after becoming a republic, the States would still 'retain' the right to have links to the Crown unless the laws were changed in accordance with their Constitution.


Those "links" are purely the appointment of the States' Governors, nothing more.  As the States' Governors are appointed on the recommendation of the States' Premiers, I fail to see where the problem lies in them still linking to the Crown...
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 Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #19 - Oct 7th, 2016 at 10:13pm
 
Quote:
Any proposal I put forward would have to approved by the people. The best way to do it would be to have the people vote on a new Constitution, voting yes or no for the whole thing as opposed having each individual provision approved.


Therein lies the recipe for no change.

I'll give you a real life example.  My Golf Club.  Our Constitution needed to be brought up to date, and two fellas, one a Lawyer and the other an Accountant took it upon themselves to draw up a new document which would be voted upon as one document at the next AGM.  The proposed document was circulated with the Notice of AGM.  I read it all very carefully.  There was lots of good stuff.  There was some atrocious stuff hidden in the detail.  So I shut up, said nothing to anyone and just turned up at the AGM.

The two proponents took the running, extolling the virtues of their baby and I let them talk themselves out.  They acknowledged it was not perfect (without stating the imperfections,) but, they assured us all, if there were problems, they could be addressed as time went by.

Just when everyone thought it was all over......I got on my feet with a "Hang on folks.  Did you know that this document has...*here insert disaster*.  Did you know that this document has...*here insert disaster*. Did you know that this document has...*here insert disaster*. Did you know that this document has...*here insert disaster*. Did you know that this document has...*here insert disaster*. etc etc etc."

After one short speech, after the flaws were pointing out,  (with the comment that......"It is not good enough to say we'll fix the problems later,") the AGM rejected the proposal.

As is usual, there were after AGM drinks at the Bar, and I assumed my usual position.  The Accountant came up to me red faced, and blurted, "Aussie, I am going to harpoon you!!!!!!!!!"  Furious that the effort he put in was so easily blown out of the water. 

Of course, as was inevitable, because of what happened, I could hardly refuse a request from the Management Committee to be part of a five person Sub-Committee to get the thing sorted.

I took months of weekly meetings.  And the essential element was this.

Every Saturday, we left an information sheet in a prominent place showing what existed on a particular issue, and how we proposed it be changed, or left as is.

By the time the next AGM came up, there was a Motion to adopt it entirely.  Passed without one little objection because we had dealt with all feedback on changes on a weekly basis.

That's what you have to do Ceasar.  Explain what you propose bit by bit, not "Here, cop this, take it or leave it," because if you do, it will be left.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #20 - Oct 7th, 2016 at 10:33pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 10:01pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 9:39pm:
Any proposal I put forward would have to approved by the people. The best way to do it would be to have the people vote on a new Constitution, voting yes or no for the whole thing as opposed having each individual provision approved.


The majority of the people in the majority of the states, right?   That is how referendums work under the Constitution yet we see you claiming that only South Australia has to vote.  How do you work out that contradiction?  Mmm?   Roll Eyes

Quote:
In the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of the Republic) Bill 1999, there was a provision in the Bill which stated that even after becoming a republic, the States would still 'retain' the right to have links to the Crown unless the laws were changed in accordance with their Constitution.


Those "links" are purely the appointment of the States' Governors, nothing more.  As the States' Governors are appointed on the recommendation of the States' Premiers, I fail to see where the problem lies in them still linking to the Crown...


It's a tough issue. If SA was able to get Britain onside then it might have a chance of working. There are arguments to suggests that the preamble could be amended to repeal South Australia as an Original State; but I agree that it's tenuous at best.

Ultimately, without Britain onside, it would never work. I'm not that serious about secessionism anyway; it would never happen, so there's no point in my hoping for something that cannot happen.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #21 - Oct 7th, 2016 at 10:33pm
 
Aussie wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 10:13pm:
Quote:
Any proposal I put forward would have to approved by the people. The best way to do it would be to have the people vote on a new Constitution, voting yes or no for the whole thing as opposed having each individual provision approved.


Therein lies the recipe for no change.

I'll give you a real life example.  My Golf Club.  Our Constitution needed to be brought up to date, and two fellas, one a Lawyer and the other an Accountant took it upon themselves to draw up a new document which would be voted upon as one document at the next AGM.  The proposed document was circulated with the Notice of AGM.  I read it all very carefully.  There was lots of good stuff.  There was some atrocious stuff hidden in the detail.  So I shut up, said nothing to anyone and just turned up at the AGM.

The two proponents took the running, extolling the virtues of their baby and I let them talk themselves out.  They acknowledged it was not perfect (without stating the imperfections,) but, they assured us all, if there were problems, they could be addressed as time went by.

Just when everyone thought it was all over......I got on my feet with a "Hang on folks.  Did you know that this document has...*here insert disaster*.  Did you know that this document has...*here insert disaster*. Did you know that this document has...*here insert disaster*. Did you know that this document has...*here insert disaster*. Did you know that this document has...*here insert disaster*. etc etc etc."

After one short speech, after the flaws were pointing out,  (with the comment that......"It is not good enough to say we'll fix the problems later,") the AGM rejected the proposal.

As is usual, there were after AGM drinks at the Bar, and I assumed my usual position.  The Accountant came up to me red faced, and blurted, "Aussie, I am going to harpoon you!!!!!!!!!"  Furious that the effort he put in was so easily blown out of the water. 

Of course, as was inevitable, because of what happened, I could hardly refuse a request from the Management Committee to be part of a five person Sub-Committee to get the thing sorted.

I took months of weekly meetings.  And the essential element was this.

Every Saturday, we left an information sheet in a prominent place showing what existed on a particular issue, and how we proposed it be changed, or left as is.

By the time the next AGM came up, there was a Motion to adopt it entirely.  Passed without one little objection because we had dealt with all feedback on changes on a weekly basis.

That's what you have to do Ceasar.  Explain what you propose bit by bit, not "Here, cop this, take it or leave it," because if you do, it will be left.


Mmm. Good analogy.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39377
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #22 - Oct 7th, 2016 at 10:45pm
 
Auggie wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 10:33pm:
It's a tough issue. If SA was able to get Britain onside then it might have a chance of working. There are arguments to suggests that the preamble could be amended to repeal South Australia as an Original State; but I agree that it's tenuous at best.

Ultimately, without Britain onside, it would never work. I'm not that serious about secessionism anyway; it would never happen, so there's no point in my hoping for something that cannot happen.


I am unsure why you believe that the UK would want to "get onside" for this or any other internal Australian issue.   The UK washed it's hands of it's last links with Oz in 1986 IIRC.   There is no great White Mother saviour in London...   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 Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #23 - Oct 7th, 2016 at 11:19pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 10:45pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 10:33pm:
It's a tough issue. If SA was able to get Britain onside then it might have a chance of working. There are arguments to suggests that the preamble could be amended to repeal South Australia as an Original State; but I agree that it's tenuous at best.

Ultimately, without Britain onside, it would never work. I'm not that serious about secessionism anyway; it would never happen, so there's no point in my hoping for something that cannot happen.


I am unsure why you believe that the UK would want to "get onside" for this or any other internal Australian issue.   The UK washed it's hands of it's last links with Oz in 1986 IIRC.   There is no great White Mother saviour in London...   Roll Eyes


I agree, they wouldn't.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39377
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #24 - Oct 8th, 2016 at 3:38pm
 
Auggie wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 11:19pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 10:45pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 10:33pm:
It's a tough issue. If SA was able to get Britain onside then it might have a chance of working. There are arguments to suggests that the preamble could be amended to repeal South Australia as an Original State; but I agree that it's tenuous at best.

Ultimately, without Britain onside, it would never work. I'm not that serious about secessionism anyway; it would never happen, so there's no point in my hoping for something that cannot happen.


I am unsure why you believe that the UK would want to "get onside" for this or any other internal Australian issue.   The UK washed it's hands of it's last links with Oz in 1986 IIRC.   There is no great White Mother saviour in London...   Roll Eyes


I agree, they wouldn't.


So, why the continual claims otherwise?   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 Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Belgarion
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5260
Gender: male
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #25 - Oct 8th, 2016 at 3:50pm
 
I must agree with Brian on this one. The ability of a state to succeed from the commonwealth has been tested and found wanting.  The 1933 WA referendum showed that it is not possible in law for a state to succeed from the Commonwealth.

When the Australian constitution was written the American Civil War was fresh in the minds of all the men drafting the document, thus the phrase one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth was included to make it absolutely clear that secession was not an option and to remove any legal basis for attempting it.
Back to top
 

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire.....(possibly)
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #26 - Oct 8th, 2016 at 5:19pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Oct 8th, 2016 at 3:38pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 11:19pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 10:45pm:
Auggie wrote on Oct 7th, 2016 at 10:33pm:
It's a tough issue. If SA was able to get Britain onside then it might have a chance of working. There are arguments to suggests that the preamble could be amended to repeal South Australia as an Original State; but I agree that it's tenuous at best.

Ultimately, without Britain onside, it would never work. I'm not that serious about secessionism anyway; it would never happen, so there's no point in my hoping for something that cannot happen.


I am unsure why you believe that the UK would want to "get onside" for this or any other internal Australian issue.   The UK washed it's hands of it's last links with Oz in 1986 IIRC.   There is no great White Mother saviour in London...   Roll Eyes


I agree, they wouldn't.


So, why the continual claims otherwise?   Roll Eyes


I didn't. I said: IF SA could get UK onside. This whole post is just speculation.

As I've said, it's not going to happen, nor do I expect it to.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: South Australia should secede....
Reply #27 - Oct 8th, 2016 at 5:26pm
 
Belgarion wrote on Oct 8th, 2016 at 3:50pm:
I must agree with Brian on this one. The ability of a state to succeed from the commonwealth has been tested and found wanting.  The 1933 WA referendum showed that it is not possible in law for a state to succeed from the Commonwealth.

When the Australian constitution was written the American Civil War was fresh in the minds of all the men drafting the document, thus the phrase one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth was included to make it absolutely clear that secession was not an option and to remove any legal basis for attempting it.


This whole thing is speculation, that's all. I have read that some people think that the Preamble may be able to be altered by Britain on their own; although I agree that this is tenuous at best. One way to do it is pass a law retroactively.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print