Society/Culture Prince William

[Roylion]

YAWN.
I'm sorry. I fell asleep.

Too many facts for you to handle?

Yes, I am saying that it was hijacked.

Well, I'll ask again. Could you explain the process by which the referendum was 'hijacked'?

Look if you don't know how the referendum was 'hijacked', just admit it.

But then you would deny it wouldn't you. It suits your argument.

I didn't realise you had put up any evidence for your argument. Where is it?

Have you got the front seats booked for one of Willy boys public appearances?

No. Should I?

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

I prefer Guinness.

I am suggesting that it is an insult to a progressive, modern independent democracy and should not exist.

Constitutional monarchies and progressive modern independent democracies aren't mutually exclusive terms. Many of the most modern progressive democracies today are constitutional monarchies. They include Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Japan.

The Australian Crown is legally seperate and independent from the British Crown. They are linked by a personal union only. The Queen's title as Queen of Australia is established through Australian law, not British law. For example Edward VIII's abdication as King of Australia in 1936 needed the authorization of the Australian government for the succession to the Crown to be changed in Australia.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Too many facts for you to handle?

No. Just too much political posturing in the house. Which you of course swallow hook, line and sinker to justify your position.

Well, I'll ask again. Could you explain the process by which the referendum was 'hijacked'?

Look if you don't know how the referendum was 'hijacked', just admit it.

We could both google and quote this fact until the cows come home and everyone ends up with a migraine.
What's the point? It's all been done before.
If you were being in the least bit genuine you would have to admit that the proposed referendum was a crock that was never going to get the required majority bythe time it reached the publics time to vote.
Why?
Because of the back room deals between Howard and "certain parties"
Yes, I know that you will say "prove it", but frankly I CBF doing research on a topic that is already common knowledge.

I didn't realise you had put up any evidence for your argument. Where is it?

I find it a waste of time when dealing with someone who, so obviously, has a picture of Liz in the drawing room and a picture of Phil in the larder.

No. Should I?

Probably not.
Most sycophants are given them free.

I prefer Guinness.

Warm of course.

Constitutional monarchies and progressive modern independent democracies aren't mutually exclusive terms. Many of the most modern progressive democracies today are constitutional monarchies. They include Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Japan.

True. But they are "ruled", (stupid term), by people who are actually born in that country.
Apart from that Womens Weekly favourite in Mary of Denmark of course.
Spare me.
What a crock.

The Australian Crown is legally seperate and independent from the British Crown. They are linked by a personal union only. The Queen's title as Queen of Australia is established through Australian law, not British law. For example Edward VIII's abdication as King of Australia in 1936 needed the authorization of the Australian government for the succession to the Crown to be changed in Australia.

Jolly good old chap.
Isn't that marvellous!
Good old Eddie and his little floozie.
Oh the shame of it all.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

The real first in line

Quit dreaming.

Why some delude themselves into thinking Prince Charles will pass up the throne I have no idea - he's not going to do it because a bunch of bored housewives don't like his wife.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Quit dreaming.

Why some delude themselves into thinking Prince Charles will pass up the throne I have no idea - he's not going to do it because a bunch of bored housewives don't like his wife.

You really don't like me, do you.
This would be the 4th or 5th snipe that you have had on at least 3 different boards.
Was it the wrestling jibe that bit badly?

Personally I hope that Captain Big Ears doesn't pass it up. I hope that he holds on to it grimly till his death.
It will do the Royal family no end of damage.

 

[Wally Carter]

The Australian Crown is legally seperate and independent from the British Crown. They are linked by a personal union only. The Queen's title as Queen of Australia is established through Australian law, not British law. For example Edward VIII's abdication as King of Australia in 1936 needed the authorization of the Australian government for the succession to the Crown to be changed in Australia.

Are you suggesting that the next monarch of Australia will not be subject to The Accession Declaration Act 1910 UK, The Act of Union 1707 UK and The Coronation Oath Act 1689 UK?

 

[Roylion]

No. Just too much political posturing in the house. Which you of course swallow hook, line and sinker to justify your position.

And you've been just so persuasive in arguing your side of the argument. Look at all that evidence you've presented. Go on. Persuade me of the error of my ways. After all if you have such a convincing argument, backed up with indisputable evidence it should be easy. Shouldn't it?

We could both google and quote this fact until the cows come home and everyone ends up with a migraine.
What's the point? It's all been done before.

OK. So in other words you effectively don't know.

If you were being in the least bit genuine you would have to admit that the proposed referendum was a crock that was never going to get the required majority bythe time it reached the publics time to vote.
Why?
Because of the back room deals between Howard and "certain parties"
Yes, I know that you will say "prove it", but frankly I CBF doing research on a topic that is already common knowledge.

Well if it's such common knowledge, why would you need to do any research? Surely you could just present it here.

Go on. As you appear to be 'expert' in these matters, surely it would be easy. After all you seem to be pretty sure of your argument that there were 'back door deals'

I find it a waste of time when dealing with someone who, so obviously, has a picture of Liz in the drawing room and a picture of Phil in the larder.

Of course you do. In other words you have no evidence to support your argument and as a result you don't want to enter into a debate where you might lose.

Your personal jibes are, after all, just so persuasive.

Probably not. Most sycophants are given them free.

Are they? Well I wouldn't know.

Warm of course.

Ah the old English stereotype. Usually the least resort of someone who has no argument. Too bad I'm not of recent English extraction, although I believe some of my direct ancestors were on the First Fleet as convicts. But anyway carry on. You're giving me a good laugh.

True. But they are "ruled", (stupid term), by people who are actually born in that country.

So change that then.

The Australian Crown is separate from the British Crown. For example had the Australian government not accepted the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936, the he would have remained King of Australia, while his brother George VI would have become the King of Great Britain. The personal union of the two crowns would have been broken. On Edward VIII's death without issue in 1972, the personal union would have been restored in the person of Elizabeth II. However the Crowns of Australia and Great Britain would still have remained legally distinct.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

You really don't like me, do you.
This would be the 4th or 5th snipe that you have had on at least 3 different boards.
Was it the wrestling jibe that bit badly?

Personally I hope that Captain Big Ears doesn't pass it up. I hope that he holds on to it grimly till his death.
It will do the Royal family no end of damage.

Don't flatter yourself - my destruction of you is purely coincidental

Didn't mean to suggest you were a bored housewife, meant them as a group in general.

 

[DeanoT]

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

Because 90% of the population barely understand the difference between a republic and a constitutional parliamentary democracy, let alone the various models that may be on offer.

A good process was discussed in another thread whereby a referendum could be held on the republican issue.

Step 1) Plebiscite - Ask the public "yes" or "no" are they, in principle, in favour of a change from the current system to a republic. If result is no, end the debate. If yes, move to step 2.

Step 2) Plebiscite - Of the various models on offer (explained on voting material), which do you think should be presented to Australians at a referendum. Most popular model is selected.

Step 3) Referendum - "Yes" or "no", do you support a change to a republic in accordance with the model chosen at step 2. Decision made, debate ends.

All other peripheral issues, such as preamble text, bill of rights, etc, gives way to this process, and can be addressed at another time.

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

Of the people who I know who call themselves republicans, most are minimalists, wanting a simple replacement of the Queen as HOS, to a President, appointed in a same or similar manner as is currently done for the GG. I am the same. A "radical" proposal, as opposed to a minimalist one is bound to fail. Start talking of entrenched Bill of Rights, and my vote goes too.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Don't flatter yourself - my destruction of you is purely coincidental

Didn't mean to suggest you were a bored housewife, meant them as a group in general.

Destruction? This is the first time that you have come back for a second bite.
Have you started watching UFC and suddenly found a backbone?

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Because 90% of the population barely understand the difference between a republic and a constitutional parliamentary democracy, let alone the variuos models that may be on offer.

A good process was discussed in another thread whereby a referendum could be held on the republican issue.

Step 1) Plebiscite - Ask the public "yes" or "no" are they, in principle, in favour of a change from the current system to a republic. If result is no, end the debate. If yes, move to step 2.

Step 2) Plebiscite - Of the various models on offer (explained on voting material), which do you think should be presented to Australians at a referendum. Most popular model is selected.

Step 3) Referendum - "Yes" or "no", do you support a change to a republic in accordance with the model chosen at step 2. Decision made, debate ends.

All other peripheral issues, such as preamble text, bill of rights, etc, gives way to this process, and can be addressed at another time.



Of the people who I know who call themselves republicans, most are minimalists, wanting a simple replacement of the Queen as HOS, to a President, appointed in a same or similar manner as is currently done for the GG. I am the same. A "radical" proposal, as opposed to a minimalist one is bound to fail. Start talking of entrenched Bill of Rights, and my vote goes too.

I knew someone smarter than me would step in eventually.
+1 from me.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

And you've been just so persuasive in arguing your side of the argument.

You're a fervent constitutional monarchist.
Fantastic.

Never the twain shall meet and the argument is pointless.
Your kind give irresistable forces and hard places a bad name.

 

[Wally Carter]

The Australian Crown is separate from the British Crown. For example had the Australian government not accepted the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936, the he would have remained King of Australia, while his brother George VI would have become the King of Great Britain. The personal union of the two crowns would have been broken. On Edward VIII's death without issue in 1972, the personal union would have been restored in the person of Elizabeth II. However the Crowns of Australia and Great Britain would still have remained legally distinct.

What proof do you have to support that notion?

 

[Roylion]

You're a fervent constitutional monarchist.
Fantastic.

Persaude me then. If your argument is so good, it should be achievable.

Never the twain shall meet and the argument is pointless.
Your kind give irresistable forces and hard places a bad name.

Your failure to answer what I thought was a reasonable question, especially given your initial claim about 'hijacking' says it all.

 

[Wally Carter]

Because 90% of the population barely understand the difference between a republic and a constitutional parliamentary democracy, let alone the various models that may be on offer.

It's the single most important thing the Australian public will ever vote on, so convenience and expediency can go take a hike. Educate the public!!!

A good process was discussed in another thread whereby a referendum could be held on the republican issue.

Step 1) Plebiscite - Ask the public "yes" or "no" are they, in principle, in favour of a change from the current system to a republic. If result is no, end the debate. If yes, move to step 2.

Step 2) Plebiscite - Of the various models on offer (explained on voting material), which do you think should be presented to Australians at a referendum. Most popular model is selected.

Step 3) Referendum - "Yes" or "no", do you support a change to a republic in accordance with the model chosen at step 2. Decision made, debate ends.

I can wear this as long as Plebiscite 2 is thorough.

All other peripheral issues, such as preamble text, bill of rights, etc, gives way to this process, and can be addressed at another time.

I see no reason as to why these issues cannot be addressed in Plebiscite 2.

Of the people who I know who call themselves republicans, most are minimalists, wanting a simple replacement of the Queen as HOS, to a President, appointed in a same or similar manner as is currently done for the GG. I am the same. A "radical" proposal, as opposed to a minimalist one is bound to fail. Start talking of entrenched Bill of Rights, and my vote goes too.

Good for you.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Persaude me then. If your argument is so good, it should be achievable.

I have told you before, that I don't care for a google, copy and paste, debate.
It's pointless and I CBF.
All, but the most truly driven and loyal constitutional monarchist acknowledge the political interference.
And you can bet your bottom pound that someone, with more motivation than I, will pick up the baton and run with it.
Then you can download the undoubted reams of CM crap at your disposal.

Your failure to answer what I thought was a reasonable question, especially given your initial claim about 'hijacking' says it all.

Your convenient myopathy on the topic says more.

 

[Roylion]

Are you suggesting that the next monarch of Australia will not be subject to The Accession Declaration Act 1910 UK, The Act of Union 1707 UK and The Coronation Oath Act 1689 UK?

The Australian monarch and the method of succession to the Australian Crown is certainly subject to Acts of the British Parliament, where relevant before 1942.

However as per the Statute of Westminster, Australia needs to give its consent to any British amendment of these Acts before they take effect in Australia.

For example, British PM Gordon Brown is currently in discussions with Buckingham Palace over changing the Act of Settlement 1701 to allow a Catholic or someone married to a Catholic to become the monarch. Male primogeniture is also under discussion. If such an Act is passed in Great Britain, it would require the consent of the Australian government for such an amendment to take effect in Australia. The Australian government can of course refuse to amend an Act, which means that the relevant unamended Act stands.

Of course, Australia as a sovereign nation is free to change its Constitution in any way it sees fit. In Canada, the Act of Settlement is now a part of Canadian constitutional law, which means that Canada can alter the succession to the Canadian throne (also held by Queen Elizabeth), in any way it sees fit.

Australia can also change its Constitution (completely independently of Britain's parliament since 1986) to alter the succession. The relevant part reads: "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom."

 

[Roylion]

All, but the most truly driven and loyal constitutional monarchist acknowledge the political interference.

I'll ask you yet again. What was the nature of this 'political interference'? How did this 'political interference' 'hijack' the result? What evidence do you have in support of your claim?

And you can bet your bottom pound that someone, with more motivation than I, will pick up the baton and run with it.

And I'll be most interested to read it.

Then you can download the undoubted reams of CM crap at your disposal.

So in other words you've made a claim that you can't substantiate.

Your convenient myopathy on the topic says more.

Educate me then, O wise one.

 

[Wally Carter]

The Australian monarch and the method of succession to the Australian Crown is certainly subject to Acts of the British Parliament, where relevant before 1942.

However as per the Statute of Westminster, Australia needs to give its consent to any British amendment of these Acts before they take effect in Australia.

Yes, yes, yes but what has this got to do with the abdication in 1936?

For example, British PM Gordon Brown is currently in discussions with Buckingham Palace over changing the Act of Settlement 1701 to allow a Catholic or someone married to a Catholic to become the monarch. Male primogeniture is also under discussion. If such an Act is passed in Great Britain, it would require the consent of the Australian government for such an amendment to take effect in Australia. The Australian government can of course refuse to amend an Act, which means that the relevant unamended Act stands.

That Act being British law. Why should Australia, a supposed legally sovereign nation, even bother to comply with British Acts?

Of course, Australia as a sovereign nation is free to change its Constitution in any way it sees fit.

Really? Can Australia repeal the whole Act?

Australia can also change its Constitution (completely independently of Britain's parliament since 1986) to alter the succession. The relevant part reads: "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom."

So theoretically, Australia can appoint Dame Edna Everage as Queen of Australia?

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

And I'll be most interested to read it.

Of course you will.
Then you will effectvely spam the whole thread with long winded diatribes such as this...

The Australian monarch and the method of succession to the Australian Crown is certainly subject to Acts of the British Parliament, where relevant before 1942.

However as per the Statute of Westminster, Australia needs to give its consent to any British amendment of these Acts before they take effect in Australia.

For example, British PM Gordon Brown is currently in discussions with Buckingham Palace over changing the Act of Settlement 1701 to allow a Catholic or someone married to a Catholic to become the monarch. Male primogeniture is also under discussion. If such an Act is passed in Great Britain, it would require the consent of the Australian government for such an amendment to take effect in Australia. The Australian government can of course refuse to amend an Act, which means that the relevant unamended Act stands.

Of course, Australia as a sovereign nation is free to change its Constitution in any way it sees fit. In Canada, the Act of Settlement is now a part of Canadian constitutional law, which means that Canada can alter the succession to the Canadian throne (also held by Queen Elizabeth), in any way it sees fit.

Australia can also change its Constitution (completely independently of Britain's parliament since 1986) to alter the succession. The relevant part reads: "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom."

Everyone will be too bored to read it and go tl;dr.
You will get your jollies.
And we will wait for the next referendum where we can tell dinosaurs, such as yourself, to piss off.
And give little Willy the scant respect and attention that he deserves.

Have you considered a career in parliament?
You could give the filibuster a whole new meaning.

 

[Roylion]

Of course you will.
Then you will effectvely spam the whole thread with long winded diatribes such as this...

Look if it's too difficult for you to read and comprehend anything longer than a couple of sentences, perhaps you should stick to Bay 13. If you want to engage in an adult debate, that goes beyond cheap personal shots about crap such as drinking warm beer and whatever other English stereotype you can dream up, then by all means. However as you clearly are reluctant or incapable, let's leave it there. I'll discuss the topic with others.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Look if it's too difficult for you to read and comprehend anything longer than a couple of sentences, perhaps you should stick to Bay 13. If you want to engage in an adult debate, that goes beyond cheap personal shots about crap such as drinking warm beer and whatever other English stereotype you can dream up, then by all means. However as you clearly are reluctant or incapable, let's leave it there. I'll discuss the topic with others.

I can read, write, edit and comprehend reports and papers that make your tomes look like comic books.
What I can't do, however, is engage with a pompous windbag who wants to argue semantics over constitutional change, whilst all the while gloating over his beloved Queen and monarchy.
It is truly a pointless, futile and illogical waste of my time.
I have rarely, ever, posted on Bay13.
Say hi to little willy for me.

 

[Roylion]

Yes, yes, yes but what has this got to do with the abdication in 1936?

Australia needs to give it's consent for any abdication act of the British Parliament before it takes effect. Statute of Westminster.

That Act being British law. Why should Australia, a supposed legally sovereign nation, even bother to comply with British Acts?

They don't have to. The Statute of Westminster gave the Commonwealth Parliament powers to repeal or amend acts of the parliament of the United Kingdom that extended to Australia

Really? Can Australia repeal the whole Act?

Theoretically I suppose....although I don't believe it would happen. Britain could repeal the Constitution Act of 1901 tomorrow and it would have no effect in Australia and hasn't since 1986.

The Australia Act of that year stated.. 'No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or to a Territory as part of the law of the Commonwealth, of the State or of the Territory.'

The Constitutional Commission 1988, Final Report stated that..."By joint action of all the Parliaments of Australia and the United Kingdom, the legislative, executive and judicial institutions of the United Kingdom ceased to have any power, responsibility or jurisdiction in respect of Australian affairs. Accordingly, the United Kingdom Parliament has implicitly 'abandoned' its Constitution Act of 1900 to the Commonwealth, States and their Territories for their local handling."

So theoretically, Australia can appoint Dame Edna Everage as Queen of Australia?

Theoretically. Australia is completely independent of Britain or any other country and can effectively do what it likes, including becoming a republic.

 

[Roylion]

I can read, write, edit and comprehend reports and papers that make your tomes look like comic books.

Then someone with your self-proclaimed intellectual superiority should be easily account for the arguments of a simple pleb like me.

 

[Wally Carter]

Australia needs to give it's consent for any abdication act of the British Parliament before it takes effect. Statute of Westminster.

I would argue that this did not apply in 1936.

The Act was not adopted as Australian law until 1942.

Menzies declaration of war in 1939 also supports this premise.

BTW, there is a very colorful story surrounding the events leading up to the adoption of this Act, are you aware of it?

Theoretically I suppose....although I don't believe it would happen. Britain could repeal the Constitution Act of 1901 tomorrow and it would have no effect in Australia and hasn't since 1986.

Which leads me to conclude that we did not have complete and full independence before this time. Would you agree?

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Then someone with your self-proclaimed intellectual superiority should be easily account for the arguments of a simple pleb like me.

Probably.
But giving a f*** is one of my main motivations.
And I don't give a f*** about constitutional semantics.