Republic (2 Viewers)

[um..]

Originally posted by cro_angel
ok i chose to stay a monarchy because:
- we arent really disadvantaged with having the queen in charge... its not like shes stopped us from doing anything
- it would be very expensive to change.. we would have to get new currency/flag and replace everything
- it is nice having a strong link with england.. one of the more important countries
- we wouldnt be in the commonwealth games.. lol
- john howard is australian.. look at the decisions he makes, hes an asshole.. whats the difference if having an australian leader and a british leader.. lots of people were born overseas so most likely the leader will be from another place.. how do u define 'australian?' because the queen could be as aussie as u and me.. she just lives somewhere else (leaders do travel and the only time u see them is like on tv anyway)
- change sucks

yeah change sucks! like, i cant believe those fuckers let us believe that the earth is round and that democracy works.

why would you not prefer a head of state who actually lives here, and has something to do with the running of the countries affairs?

and you're still allowed to be in the commonwealth games even after you've left

 

[cro_angel]

what i meant was.. the queen is only the head by name.. she doesnt specifically wake up every day and say yes here are all my plans for australia.. and if we want to do something she has never said 'no u cant do it'
isnt it our pm/government/us through voting that decide everything anyway?
i just dont see all the fuss about something which wont be that much different to the way we do it now..

 

[adamj]

Originally posted by Ziff
Why should a foreigner be our head of state? Since federation the nation has grown so much and changed to much that it no longer makes sense to have the Queen as head of state. It also makes no sense because it's perpetuating the idea that we must seek approval from foreign nations, even now the Howard government is trying to discredit Latham by telling the Australian public what the leader of another nation thinks of him. That's ridiculous! Keeping the Queen as head of state places the importance of foreigners above that of the Australian citizen. An Australian citizen should be the head of state to symbolise that we are our own, we can stand on our own and that we don't need to seek approval from outside, we should be deriving approval from within.

Ziff people like you are the surface warriors. You only play games with the symbols of politics, not the workings, Now you are a legal studies student, what have you learnt about independance in our judiciary. The whole idea of consitutional monarchy is that we have sovereignty filtered through a constitution. The monarch is our impartial figure, not politically elected, nor appointed. It is a position that should be at an international level to ensure that we follow the democratic principles of Natural Law, having said that our consitution via elections allow our Parliament sovereignty.

I would also like to say that having an impartial person as head of state is of major significance in the representing the judicial branch. I have had full on republicans from the USA criticise the models put forth as nothing but a waste of time.

 

[SKA]

hey.. shes got a good point

 

[adamj]

Originally posted by PaleReflection
Maybe one hundred years ago when we were a growing country we needed England's support, but we have become much more independent now and we no longer should be recognised as part of England.
I also agree with Ziff: why should a foreigner be our Head of State? Shouldn't it be an Australian to symbolise our nationalism? Oh, wait, I forgot, regardless of who our Head of State is we will still follow Bush and Blair...

PaleRelfection, you have given a pale reflection on our consitutional system, don't answer when someone asks you about our constitution, if that's your opinion.

What republicans have to get out of their radical bodies is this has nothing to do with Blair or Bush, so stop playing the little lefty.

If you read the Australia Act 1986, singed by Her Majesty, it states that our constitutional head of state is the Governor general.

Also, how do you mean the monarch was more important to us then? Only 8 changes have been allowed via referendum, none to the role of the Monarch, how has it changed?

 

[adamj]

Originally posted by s2ophie
I think we definitely should be. It was an embarassment to think that rightfully, the person who should have opened the 2000 olympic games was the Queen. Instead, the Queens representative was choosen. This is a fairly simplistic example but it should be someone who the Australian public has elected tor epresent them that opens these kinds of things and represents the nation. To me it seems archaic to have a country like Australia with a head of state who is not representative of the Australian people. (and who coincidentally uses Australia as a holiday destination for their grandchildren...)

Embarrasment? 5 out of the seven world most known democracies are under a consitutional monarch.

 

[adamj]

Originally posted by Ziff
The Australian head of state would have a symbolic role only. It wouldn't be the American way because that's a totally different system. We would retain the westminster system but with a figure head as head of state. Symbolic role only.
No matter what you say Melbournian, the GG is STILL the representative of a foreigner, even if he or she is an Australian.
Plus this "if it ain't broke don't fix it" attitude is appalling. If people always had that attitude there would never be progress. You have to look at how something could be improved, how to progress, and not at maintaining the status quo.

Your mates are hopeless at drawing up a plan though. That plan they have is broke and hell it needs fixing.

What's appalling is that you have missed many areas of constitutional evidence, issues that will arise if that consitution is tested in our High Court, thats enough to send a country broke, enough to endanger our freedoms.

 

[adamj]

Originally posted by zahid
YEA i would hav said the same thing about the GST a few years back.... however its only a matter of time before we become a republic.

Zahid

I disagree, the majority are silent, and as we become more intelligent we know not to take a risk. I am sick of these left wing ding bat republicans using our society for experiments on a consitutional foundation.

 

[adamj]

Originally posted by Generator
We have no need to be linked to Britain when our future is to be found in Asia. This is an Australiasian nation, not a European nation.

However, when the Monarchy exists only as symbolic entity, is there any real reason to change it so soon (look at what happened last time we all voted... Latham has the right idea (Yes or No and then What Type)).

HAHAHA

Australasian? Mr Keating's friend. I never call myself as being apart of Australasia. The Asian forums think we are too European and the European forums see us as too Asian, Let's make the most and be proud to be AUSTRALIAN, the same way we have for the past 103 years under the constitution.

BTW, Latham's electorate is pro-monarchy according to the 1999 referedum.

 

[adamj]

Originally posted by zahid
welll give me the figures and statistics as well as your source...cause i am finding it a little hard to believe.

Probably becuase you are one of the people on our taxpayer benefits!

If the ALP woke up to themselves and would take on a proportional tax system then a GST would work even better, the workers' party taxes its workers more.

 

[adamj]

Originally posted by Ziff
Hong Kong is under Chinese rule, not British and not on their own...

They flew a British flag for a while, if you noticed.

 

[adamj]

FACT: Only 22% of electorates had a majority "Yes" vote.

FACT: Our GG is the consitutional head of state.

FACT: Democracy is much older than constitutional monarchy (is it then outdated?)

FACT: The Fijian system of republicanism has had flaws, after constitutional analysis, it has been found that even after heavy changes to the constitution, the Monarch is still has certain powers.

 

[cro_angel]

i feel stupid :|

 

[SKA]

lmao lol

dont worry so do i... i dunno where these people get their info from

 

[adamj]

-Freedom of Information

-Law Professors who have graduated in Australia, France and Britain;

-Results of the Referendum

-Law Research

-ACM

 

[SKA]

whatg u trying to say??? u spend ur life researching?

 

[adamj]

No, I am saying that before I start bragging hypnotic garbage about politics, I do my homework.

 

[SKA]

ohhhh.. how can u be botherd

 

[adamj]

At least, i am confident when I go to a ballot box. How canI? I am politically involved, I am a Liberal member and an Australians for Constitutional Monarchy member who will be soon looking at being involved in the formation of Young ACM, I spoke to Kerry Jones about it.

 

[SKA]

ow well .. congratulations.

i dont think voting should be compulsory