Society/Culture Prince William

[GeorgeGrljusich]

The real first in line to the British throne has arrived in New Zulland and is shortly about to grace our fair shores.
When will they realise that most of us don't give a tinkers cuss?

 

[mantis]

I heard Ita (I can't talk poperly) Buttrose, saying that deep down all Aussies love the royal family & will embrace William as our monarch & will stop the push for us becoming a republic.

 

[Wally Carter]

I'll take the British monarchy over the claytons republic we were offered at the last referendum every single time.

At least the monarchy is an obvious anomoly.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

I heard Ita (I can't talk poperly) Buttrose, saying that deep down all Aussies love the royal family & will embrace William as our monarch & will stop the push for us becoming a republic.

I will never listen to that Cold Chisel song again.

I'll take the British monarchy over the claytons republic we were offered at the last referendum every single time.

At least the monarchy is an obvious anomoly.

Of course, those who were so ideologically opposed to the Republic had nothing to do at all with the structure of the proposed change and the questions to which they were related..
Nothing at all.
Thanks Rodent.

All hail King William!

 

[Wally Carter]

Of course, those who were so ideologically opposed to the Republic had nothing to do at all with the structure of the proposed change and the questions to which they were related..
Nothing at all.
Thanks Rodent.

You are missing the point. Then again, most of you here are not too big on independent thought processes.

I would sooner have a ridiculous situation for all the world to see in preference to being shackled in to colonial constitution dressed up as a republic.

Comprende?

All hail King William!

YAY the PRESIDENT!!!!

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

You are missing the point. Then again, most of you here are not too big on independent thought processes.

I would sooner have a ridiculous situation for all the world to see in preference to being shackled in to colonial constitution dressed up as a republic.

Comprende?

YAY the PRESIDENT!!!!

umm..that was my point.
We had the opportunity to set up a truly great Republican model, only for those with vested interests in keeping us as a constitutional monarchy to hijack the referendum and the eventual model that was proposed through it.
Now we have some pommy plonker with zero relevance coming to our country at great expense to us and masquerading as a Prince.
And sure enough, all of the smug Monarchists will be out there waving their little flags and wetting their knickers if they catch a glimpse of a young guy who is no more a prince of our country than I am.

 

[Wally Carter]

umm..that was my point.
We had the opportunity to set up a truly great Republican model, only for those with vested interests in keeping us as a constitutional monarchy to hijack the referendum and the eventual model that was proposed through it.

What was on offer at the referendum was not "a truly great Republican model".

Until we actually have "a truly great Republican model", I am happy to keep the ridiculous scenario of a foreign king from a foreign country in place as it assures that the republican debate will stay in the public eye.

Now we have some pommy plonker with zero relevance coming to our country at great expense to us and masquerading as a Prince. And sure enough, all of the smug Monarchists will be out there waving their little flags and wetting their knickers if they catch a glimpse of a young guy who is no more a prince of our country than I am.

Monarchists need to be constantly reminded that the failure of the first republican referendum was a "No" vote to a particular republican model, not a "Yes" vote to a constitutional monarchy. They need to be reminded that the referendum was solely about altering a preamble and adding the word "President", nothing more.

On no part of the referendum were the people of Australia asked if they wished to continue with the present system.

 

[dmc333]

Doesn't seem like a tosser, but I couldn't care less if he's here or not.

 

[tandino]

Give the people what they want, and they will back it to the hilt. You are probably going to struggle to get a system up that doesn't involve a President elected by the people.

 

[DeanoT]

Give the people what they want, and they will back it to the hilt. You are probably going to struggle to get a system up that doesn't involve a President elected by the people.

The concept of direct election of the President is the best argument possible for keeping the monarchy. If this is truly what Australia wants, we should keep what we have now.

 

[Wally Carter]

I personally don't care which system we have as long as we have a seperate broad ranging Bill of Rights which is free from the clutches of Parliament and includes a mechanism for Citizens Initiated Referenda.

Give me that and I'll vote for Ronald McDonald to be president, or happily continue with the Guelphs on the Australian throne.

Too many people get trapped up in the jingoistic rubbish surrounding this debate whilst completely ignoring the real substance of the matter.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

What was on offer at the referendum was not "a truly great Republican model".

I didn't say it was. I said that we had the OPPORTUNITY to have one until it was hijacked.
Mind you, I'm not surprised that you missed my point as..

most of you here are not too big on independent thought processes.

Oops

Until we actually have "a truly great Republican model", I am happy to keep the ridiculous scenario of a foreign king from a foreign country in place as it assures that the republican debate will stay in the public eye.

Yes,it seems that we have little else to do until the inevitable "next" referendum comes along.
Let's hope that they model it correctly when that time comes.
Under 10 years IMO.

Monarchists need to be constantly reminded that the failure of the first republican referendum was a "No" vote to a particular republican model, not a "Yes" vote to a constitutional monarchy. They need to be reminded that the referendum was solely about altering a preamble and adding the word "President", nothing more.

You won't win that one one. They are the masters of head in the sand as they hum God Save the Queen.

On no part of the referendum were the people of Australia asked if they wished to continue with the present system.

See, we actually agree. How about you read my posts more carefully next time.

 

[Wally Carter]

See, we actually agree. How about you read my posts more carefully next time.

How about you explain yourself in a more coherent fashion "rodent"?

 

[bit_pattern]

^^ Aiming for another red card I see?

 

[Wally Carter]

^^ Aiming for another red card I see?

1. I was pointing out a word which the poster in question utilised in order to make a point.

2. I certainly don't seem to have your golden boy status judging by the way your utilisation of the word "****" seems to have gone through unnoticed.

3. Get back to whining on about your GW charts and leave me alone. We are having a serious conversation here about an important matter.

 

[tandino]

The concept of direct election of the President is the best argument possible for keeping the monarchy. If this is truly what Australia wants, we should keep what we have now.

It seems to work well in Ireland. Regardless, I can't see the point of change for change sake. I'm quite happy with the status quo until something better comes up, I don't think what we were offered in '99 constitutes something "better"

 

[Play by Numbers]

1. I was pointing out a word which the poster in question utilised in order to make a point.

Oh FFS, I assume it was a sarcastic thank you directed at Howard and his back door dealings with Turnbull.

Turnbull's insistence of the model used and hijacking of the Republican campaign are what can most likely be blamed for it's failure.

 

[Wally Carter]

If that is the case then I apologise to George.

Once again, a little more coherency wouldn't go astray.

 

[bit_pattern]

Or maybe you could try slowing down and learn how to argue without blindly attacking anyone who disagres with you? Just a thought...

 

[Roylion]

We had the opportunity to set up a truly great Republican model, only for those with vested interests in keeping us as a constitutional monarchy to hijack the referendum and the eventual model that was proposed through it.

Could you explain the process by which the referendum was 'hijacked'?

I was under the impression that the the two thirds majority model of a republic to be put up against the status quo was voted upon by the Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Convention consisted of 152 participants. 76 participants were elected by a voluntary vote of the Australian people and the other 76 chosen by the government (40 parliamentary and 36 non-parliamentary and from a variety of stances including Republicans). The 152 delegates voted for the two thirds majority option by 73votes in favour to 57 against with 22 abstentions. While this was less than an absolute majority it was declared carried by the chair and a motion of dissent in the chair's ruling was overwhelmingly defeated in a vote by the very same delegates. This was also after three rounds of voting, when other direct election models put forward, such as the McGarvie model, were overwhelmingly defeated.

Because the two thirds model was overwhelmingly supported by the republican delegates to the Convention, John Howard decided to put that model to the referendum, a decision that at the time enthusiastically acclaimed by the Australian Republican Movement delegates and the media.

The eventual Constitutional amendment, put to the Australian people was:

A proposed law: "To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament."

Seems clear....a republic with a President elected by two thirds of the Australian parliament, or a constitutional monarchy headed by the Queen of Australia. That the President was to be Australian was outlined in the actual Bill, if not explicitly defined in the question. Surely most, if not all, voters would have understood that the President of an Australian republic would have been an Australian citizen.

Now we have some pommy plonker with zero relevance coming to our country at great expense to us and masquerading as a Prince.

What? He's not a Prince? I was under the impression William is second-in-line to inherit the Australian Crown.

And sure enough, all of the smug Monarchists will be out there waving their little flags and wetting their knickers if they catch a glimpse of a young guy who is no more a prince of our country than I am.

Are you suggesting that the Crown of Australia (i.e. the Australian monarchy) does not exist?

 

[Wally Carter]

The whole structure of the "constitutional convention" is what I find offensive. Why should the people put up with "76 participants......elected by a voluntary vote of the Australian people and the other 76 chosen by the government"?

Why not put forward various detailed constitutional structures for the people to decide on?

IMO, it was deliberately manipulated to maintain a minimalist alteration.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Oh FFS, I assume it was a sarcastic thank you directed at Howard and his back door dealings with Turnbull.

Turnbull's insistence of the model used and hijacking of the Republican campaign are what can most likely be blamed for it's failure.

Thank you.

If that is the case then I apologise to George.

Once again, a little more coherency wouldn't go astray.

And thank you.
I'll practice the coherency if you practice the comprehension

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Could you explain the process by which the referendum was 'hijacked'?

I was under the impression that blah, blah bloody blah

YAWN.
I'm sorry. I fell asleep.
Yes, I am saying that it was hijacked.
But then you would deny it wouldn't you. It suits your argument.
Have you got the front seats booked for one of Willy boys public appearances?

What? He's not a Prince? I was under the impression William is second-in-line to inherit the Australian Crown.

You're drinking a warm english bitter out of a Toby mug, no doubt.

Are you suggesting that the Crown of Australia (i.e. the Australian monarchy) does not exist?

No.
I am suggesting that it is an insult to a progressive, modern independent democracy and should not exist.

 

[likka]

Monarchy is a wank but Willy seems like a decent enough bloke.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Monarchy is a wank but Willy seems like a decent enough bloke.

He more than likely is. And frankly I feel a bit sorry for him.
I am bagging what he represents, not the individual.
Yes I called him a plonker, but all poms are plonkers.