New flag for OZ

[fabulousphil]

Originally posted by Porthos
If we ever get a flag with a ****ing kangaroo on it, I'm emigrating.

Wouldnt there need to be two

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by fabulousphil
Wouldnt there need to be two

Well presumably the New Zealand one will have a sheep on it. Fly them side by side for the full effect.

 

[Roylion]

Originally posted by sainter
I still don't believe that Howard had any intention of making the issue easy for the Australian public decide.

I'm not sure what Howard did to make the issue more difficult. Its well known before the referendum he was a monarchist. He brought together the Constitutional Convention, held the referndum and allowed his MPs to exercise a conscience vote. If Costello and co. could promote their support for a republic, then why couldn't John Howard do so for the monarchists? One of the charges levelled against John Howard, after the referendum failed is that he lacked leadership and vision because of his lack of a support for a republic. Plainly rubbish in my view. (By the way I don't vote Liberal)

Originally posted by sainter

What did you think about the changing of the preamble to the constitution issue being asked in the same referendum? It may very well have been for financial reasons because referendums aren't cheap but I felt it detracted from what the important issue really was. A lot of people simply voted no for both issues.

I didn't have a problem with the preamble being asked in the same referendum and I don't believe it detracted from the republic issue. In my view many people voted 'No' because they were not disatisfied with the existing system, not because they didn't like the preamble. I voted "No" because I'm of the belief that a system of a "constitutional monarchy" is better than a republic.

Originally posted by sainter

Of the referendums that this country has had the vast majority have being rejected. Unfortunately it's seems a lot of Australian's are resistant to change. (From memory I think the referendum in 1968 to give aborginals the right to vote was the last referendum to receive a positive response. The fact that about 10% said no was a big concern but that's another issue)

The 1999 referendum failed for two main reasons in my view.
1. Many people couldn't see the point of changing.
2. The republicans themselves were divided. Until they get their act together and agree on a model, I doubt that Australia will become a republic

Originally posted by sainter

A poll after the referendum showed that 70% of Australian's do want a republic so clearly the republicans do need to get their act together and agree to a particular model. From what I have found asking around at the time, a lot of people simply didn't understand what the actual model meant or how it worked. The monarchists and non ARM republicans clearly played this card during the campaign with scare tactics and Howard loved the way the Australian public fell for it.

Howard was a monarchist. Naturally he was pleased, as was I, that the republic was rejected. Actually the tactics emplyed by both sides (monarchist and republicans alike) left a great deal to be desired.

Originally posted by sainter

I actually wasn't a big fan of the constitutional convention either. I mean it was obvious that the Australian Republican Movement filled with celebrities and famous Australians was always going to be voted in with the greatest number and that that would be the model put forward to the Australian public. Personally I thought it was better than the Westminster/Federalism hybrid model we have at the moment anyway but I'm sure a lot of people may have put their faith in people they actually knew rather than look at the specific models and platforms at great length.

Its my view that a republican model, agreed to by some sort of convention or gathering needs to be put forward and discussed at length before the Australian public votes on it vs. the constitutional monarchy.

I looked at all four models closely and read just about anything I could get my hands on, during the debate. Nothing really convinced me that any system was better than the one we already have. The model eventually put forward was in fact a model of the Westminster System, with the monarch substituted by the president.

Originally posted by sainter

Anyway some time in the next 50 years I'm sure the republican movement will gather some momentum again.

Yes, probably. If I'm alive, I still doubt I'll be supporting it.

 

[Portia]

I think that anyone that doesn't like the republican model that was proposed would have loved the way the referendum was worded, whether they were republican or monarchist or whatever.

If it had been some vague question like "Do you want Australia to become a republic?", then quite clearly by voting yes, they would've ended up with the republican party's proposed model.

To have such a vague question on how a president would be elected is dangerous....its like someone making you promise me you won't get mad before they say something maddening.