We vote them in to do a lot worse things to us than pick a president
Is time Australia went Republic.
- Thread starter Free Agent
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
absolutely but keep the constitution removing reference to the queen, third party countries and remove the sections empowering government to discriminate based on race
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,275
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Yeah, good thanks.
Who do you want for Prez ?......more than likely it will be a GG type person if we let the boofheads decide it will be a sports man either one is better than a Monarchy
Very presumptuous and arrogant of you to say there is already 100% support .
As usual it is only your opinion that counts,community leader indeed.
- May 19, 2017
- 9,403
- 10,955
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Nobody will choose anyone. Eddie Mcpres has his name all over it.
Who gives a s**t, such a non issue don't we have enough real problems in the world atm
you give a s**t thats why your posting here pretending not to
Upgrayedd
A Vote for Clive is a Vote for Justice
Reported thread, Treasonous dogs
Upgrayedd
A Vote for Clive is a Vote for Justice
You dont get to elect your head of state currently brah
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,490
- 40,669
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Leave the UN and refuse to adhere to any of the international charters and conventions we have signed?
What involvement has Britain had here over the last 44 years ?
Do we even need a President? Just make it law that the AEC calls a Federal election if a Government can't pass supply.
If we do go for a President, then make the role have minimal powers. Not one that has the power to block any legislation passed by Parliament. The last thing we need is one thinking they are more than just a figurehead. Also one that can't dismiss a government unless supply is blocked, but one that in turn can't be dismissed by the government, without a two-thirds majority of both houses (so you don't have to have a Kerr hiding, so he can dismiss Whitlam before Whitlam dismisses him).
If we do go for a President, then make the role have minimal powers. Not one that has the power to block any legislation passed by Parliament. The last thing we need is one thinking they are more than just a figurehead. Also one that can't dismiss a government unless supply is blocked, but one that in turn can't be dismissed by the government, without a two-thirds majority of both houses (so you don't have to have a Kerr hiding, so he can dismiss Whitlam before Whitlam dismisses him).
Upgrayedd
A Vote for Clive is a Vote for Justice
Like any party will make that law
Actually don't mind the royal family being about, they tend to get the foaming bludgers riled up!
This always seems like a contrivance designed purely to get the Yes vote over the line, rather than an effective way to understand the wishes of the electorate.
I think it is fair and reasonable to expect that when you ask people to choose something as significant as a method of governance, you put the options that they're choosing between on the table at the beginning.
Whether that's one republican model going head to head against the current system (as in 1999) or a range of models presented with ranked choice voting (similar to elections for the HoR) I don't really mind. But I abhor the idea of people voting to ditch the current constitution before knowing what is going to replace it (and I don't think it's a recipe for economic or political stability).
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,275
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Because she holds no political allegiances in this country.
If it was actually 'a simple yes/no', then you wouldn't need to ask a follow-up question in the event of a yes
Except you know what you're getting with a no vote. Caesar's second sentence is reasonable. People should know what becoming a republic would entail and what system will be put in place before voting on it.
