Play Nice Derailed, (The Place to Continue Off-Topic Discussion)

[Drought Break]

Meeting minutes are not fine print. Are you serious?

Meeting minutes. Lol

I have put the full Uluṟu statement up

It’s post 2231 if you bothered to read it

No meeting minutes in it.

 

[sr36]

Like Hilary's 'basket of deplorables' was a great line

Until it wasn't at the ballot box

It's self-indulgent and it puts the cause backwards

Agree on both counts.

Elections should include points attributed to witty put downs.

Marcia Langton full stop isn't someone you want on your side in an election. She's ****ing clever but too prickly.

 

[No SPIN]

It could have been.

No - because Dutton would have again derailed the vote probably with the same “ need for detail” argument.
It’s naive to think otherwise.

 

[gouki88]

Meeting minutes. Lol

I have put the full Uluṟu statement up

It’s post 2231 if you bothered to read it

No meeting minutes in it.

I did bother to read it. Most of that is not the Statement, which has been confirmed to be 1 page.

 

[Drought Break]

I did bother to read it. Most of that is not the Statement, which has been confirmed to be 1 page.

So what’s all the extra pages then? Someone fraudulently write it up?

 

[sr36]

I believe in symbolism and would consider recognition important, even without the voice. Splitting would have been clever, but hindsight is 20-20.

I like symbolism too.. But we're drowning in it on this issue and it's a convenient way of nothing changing. The uluru statement made it pretty clear that symbolism was undesirable here - we do that before every meeting, every footy match, every event, etc...

 

[gouki88]

So what’s all the extra pages then? Someone fraudulently write it up?

Literally just background information. As has been verified by an FOI request to the NIAA

 

[Drought Break]

Literally just background information. As has been verified by an FOI request to the NIAA

So when Elbow says he supports the Uluṟu statement to the “ full” he’s not referring to the full statement, just the 1 page? He’s not the most trustworthy fella going around.

 

[gouki88]

So when Elbow says he supports the Uluṟu statement to the “ full” he’s not referring to the full statement, just the 1 page? He’s not the most trustworthy fella going around.

What?

 

[jmac70]

So when Elbow says he supports the Uluṟu statement to the “ full” he’s not referring to the full statement, just the 1 page? He’s not the most trustworthy fella going around.

How would you explain the result to an 11 year old?

 

[whiskeytown]

So what’s all the extra pages then? Someone fraudulently write it up?

Yep the ones that sprout about misinformation from the No case then tell you that the voice was only a 1 page document

All the other pages mentioning treaty, reparations, sovereignty etc… must have been random fish and chip wrapping!

 

[gouki88]

Yep the ones that sprout about misinformation from the No case then tell you that the voice was only a 1 page document

All the other pages mentioning treaty, reparations, sovereignty etc… must have been random fish and chip wrapping!

The Voice isn’t a document at all! Bloody hell you lot are so unbelievably confused

 

[Drought Break]

Yep the ones that sprout about misinformation from the No case then tell you that the voice was only a 1 page document

All the other pages mentioning treaty, reparations, sovereignty etc… must have been random fish and chip wrapping!

Yeh nothing to see here. Just back ground information drafted by Thomas Mayo and the team

 

[gouki88]

Yeh nothing to see here. Just back ground information drafted by Thomas Mayo and the team

Were we voting on adding the Uluṟu Statement to the Constitution? Or the additional elements?

 

[Drought Break]

The Voice isn’t a document at all! Bloody hell you lot are so unbelievably confused

From someone who thinks the rest of the statement is just “meeting minutes “

 

[jmac70]

Yep the ones that sprout about misinformation from the No case then tell you that the voice was only a 1 page document

All the other pages mentioning treaty, reparations, sovereignty etc… must have been random fish and chip wrapping!

Here are a few used by the No campaign:

• loss of home ownership
• divide the nation
• create legal risk
• create a third chamber of government
• no detail
• the UN will take over Australia
• the AEC will tamper with no votes

 

[jmac70]

From someone who thinks the rest of the statement is just “meeting minutes “

What is it that worries you about the rest of the statement?

 

[gouki88]

From someone who thinks the rest of the statement is just “meeting minutes “

It is not “the rest of the statement” - that is merely a figment of your imagination. It is information additional to the Statement, as confirmed by the NIAA.

Why do you reject the truth?

 

[Drought Break]

Here are a few used by the No campaign:

• loss of home ownership
• divide the nation
• create legal risk
• create a third chamber of government
• no detail
• the UN will take over Australia
• the AEC will tamper with no votes

2,3,4 and 5 are all very relevant especially dividing the nation. This thread is evidence of that. Who from the No campaign said you would loose your home ownership?

 

[Drought Break]

What is it that worries you about the rest of the statement?

I have already outlined my reasons for voting no. The statement was only a small part.

 

[jmac70]

2,3,4 and 5 are all very relevant especially dividing the nation. This thread is evidence of that. Who from the No campaign said you would loose your home ownership?

Loss of home ownership has been going around since Mabo. Definitely spoken about in social media, but not directly attributable.
Point 2 was deliberately created by the no campaign. A yes vote would not have divided the nation. There is nothing new in government listening to an advisory group.
Point 3 - no legal risk because the voice advisory group would have had no legislative power.

Point 5 - plenty of detail was available: The Voice Design Principles

 

[No SPIN]

2,3,4 and 5 are all very relevant especially dividing the nation. This thread is evidence of that. Who from the No campaign said you would loose your home ownership?

I look forward to hearing your explanation of 2,3,4,5.

 

[jmac70]

I look forward to hearing your explanation of 2,3,4,5.

I wouldn’t hold out too much hope given he used big footy as evidence of a division of the nation.

 

[gouki88]

2,3,4 and 5 are all very relevant especially dividing the nation. This thread is evidence of that. Who from the No campaign said you would loose your home ownership?

What nonsense! A third chamber?? That myth still has legs?

If the supposed “legal risk” doesn’t worry the Solicitor-General, why does it worry you?

 

[jathanas]

I like symbolism too.. But we're drowning in it on this issue and it's a convenient way of nothing changing. The uluru statement made it pretty clear that symbolism was undesirable here - we do that before every meeting, every footy match, every event, etc...

Arguably the whole initiative was symbolic given that the Voice is an advisory body.

Could have achieved recognition in the constitution and legislated a Voice type body. A vastly preferable outcome to what we have now.

Looking at this train-wreck there were so many ways Albo and the ALP could have responded, even way back in June... but they chose not to. Spectacular own goal.