Politics Should Australia become a Republic?
- Thread starter Groupie_
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Yes but last time the republicans heads were Turnbull and McGuire. Time has shown they are duds
Yes, in that sense, we were always going to be well worn but worn well, by someone.
I always wonder when banks borrow, whose banks do they borrow from, for governments to borrow from them and owe for decades, and especially if a Pandemic turns up world wide and every one is busted, talk about manipulation, ha ha .
I agree, Turnbull is a disgrace to anybody , he is treacherous and also Eddie was into the republic side of things but celebrities get themselves easily confused, Ed does his millionaire show well ,and has done a lot for footy outside Collingwood as well, but his mouth got him into strife a couple of times.
I found it a bit hard to see where his politics was? But the republic argument to me is about this country and safe government, nothing to do with ceremonial set ups or the UK.
- Moderator
- #306
When Elizabeth was aged 25, the immediate royal family consisted of the Queen's younger sister aged 21, a toddler aged 3 and an infant aged 1.
There are considerably more immediate royals than that for Charles now including two sons, five grandchildren, a younger sister and her children and grandchildren as well as two younger brothers and their children.
On what basis?
No.
- Moderator
- #307
My opinion mate, you were a bit slow this time.
And you missed my post ‘be suspicious if the mining lobby owned LNP start supporting a republic’
For the ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix’ it crowd
- Moderator
- #310
For what purpose? What is it proving?
- Moderator
- #311
Mining lobbies fund separatist or independence movements all over the world. It’s to free them of thos pesky taxes and loyalties
They seek to create a seperate resource rich ‘state’ with a ‘government’ in its pocket.
Come to think of it why would they need to do that here, they already have that
Last edited:
Opinion again, but if it was the most able to succeed Elizabeth II, it should be Anne.
Polls in England want William to inherit directly, which of course can’t happen, but William is turning out to be a bit whiney too.
It amuses me the amount of projection the media hangers on over there are putting on the Megan and Harry show.
Cold shouldered, not spoken to. No one mentioned the possible imminent release of Harry’s memoir. I’d be not saying much either
But for all the accusations of Harry’s revelations so far being dis loyal, they all appear to be true
But the monarchy is above all that eh folks? A complete furphy
Polls in England want William to inherit directly, which of course can’t happen, but William is turning out to be a bit whiney too.
It amuses me the amount of projection the media hangers on over there are putting on the Megan and Harry show.
Cold shouldered, not spoken to. No one mentioned the possible imminent release of Harry’s memoir. I’d be not saying much either
But for all the accusations of Harry’s revelations so far being dis loyal, they all appear to be true
But the monarchy is above all that eh folks? A complete furphy
- Moderator
- #314
On what basis?
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
I like the idea of becoming a republic but have serious concerns about anything more than a tweak to our constitution
our constitution is far more important than who is the next monarch
our constitution is far more important than who is the next monarch
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
if a republic results in a new constitution, then our whole system (including the legal system) is impacted. changes may include:
- powers of the states
- powers of the federal government
- changes to transition of power
- changes to the electoral system
- changes to powers to dissolve parliament
Engimal v3
**** m**nl*nd*rs
Nah, can't be ****ed with it
That's about as Australian an answer as you can get
On the basis of my opinion, and maybe her kids have happy lives etc
Do I need to define ‘opinion’?
- Moderator
- #320
Yeah. So I'm asking in response what's the basis of your opinion? Seeing you offered that opinion on a public forum.
And this is the basis on which she would be a better monarch? Her children supposedly have 'happy lives'?
I'm well aware of what an 'opinion' is. You offered yours on a public forum. I'm asking in response why you hold such an opinion. It's called discussion / debate.
Lots of people more in the know than me have the opinion that of the queens offspring, Anne has the best character and track record to become the monarch
Way back, society had ways of sidelining a dud monarh or monatch successor. It was part of the system you clearly favour. What I’m saying is the monarchy system which is mostly based on what’s gone before, is not what happens now
Sadly the ‘fitness’ to rule today seems to be what media barons want, not logical reflection
Having said that, Anne is probably perfectly happy wit hers and her families situation.
- Moderator
- #322
On what basis do you say this? Is she also not divorced after rumours that she had a relationship with her bodyguard Peter Cross? Was she also not nick-named "Her Royal Rudeness" and a reputation for being difficult and "....very bad-tempered... [and]...very sulky." She's also the only member of the British royal family to have a criminal conviction when she was convicted in 2002 after failing to control her dog in a public park. The dog ended up attacking two children. And she's also been fined several times for speeding and had her driver's licence suspended.
"Way back". You mean when the monarchy was an absolute monarchy. We're talking about a constitutional monarchy.
I've made it very clear I favour the system of a constitutional monarchy.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
What do you mean when you refer to 'fitness to rule'?
Quite possibly. And?
Just give it up mate. You don’t offend/trigger me as much as I seem to offend you
And focussing on the one comment I prefaced with ‘just my opinion’
My other opinion is my opinion is mine, your opinion is yours, and unless it’s offensive, it shouldn’t be beholden to anyone else’s sensibility.
Last edited:
Is it fair to have another referendum? We had one and it was decisively rejected. It seems shitty that republicans can just push for infinity referendums until they eventually get one during a time of the right public mood and get it over the line - then they get their way forever.
Similar threads
