Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[Roylion]

Nek minnit



You know that expert opinion is still only opinion, right?

Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation.
Pape is a law lecturer and barrister.
4:3 judgment.
In case you don't know what that means:
4 judges disagreed with Mr Pape.
3 judges agreed with Mr Pape.

That's 8 experts.
Half gave one expert opinion.
The other half gave the opposite expert opinion.


I even bolded and underlined 'expert'.

Is that really the best you can come up with?

So where's your expert opinion that supports the claims you made? Who are they? And what have they said?

 

[Number37]

Is that really the best you can come up with?

So where's your expert opinion that supports the claims you made? Who are they? And what have they said?

The best you can come up with is that it is expert opinion and therefore there is no other possibility.
When that is patently false.
Experts on the same subject can give 2 completely opposite opinions.
Obviously you don't understand that.

You are wholly relying on the form of the opinion rather than the substance.

 

[schneebly111]

This debate is descending into a discussion about law.

How about reframing the discussion to be one of identity? How does this nation build its own identity separate to the UK? Because until we get rid of the Union Jack, head of state and coins etc and embrace a uniquely Australian identity then we will always been seen as a little Anglo UK enclave at the south of Asia rather than the independent forward thinking nation we should be.

 

[Roylion]

The best you can come up with is that it is expert opinion and therefore there is no other possibility.

Come up with another expert opinion that supports what you claim. Any expert will do. And we'll discuss that. You made a claim which I see no merit to. So where's the expert opinion that supports your claim.

You are wholly relying on the form of the opinion rather than the substance.

You have no substance. Just unsupported claims.

 

[Number37]

Come up with another expert opinion that supports what you claim. Any expert will do. And we'll discuss that. You made a claim which I see no merit to. So where's the expert opinion that supports your claim.


You have no substance. Just unsupported claims.

Moronic drivel. Again.
Absence of critical thought. Again.

You are the one claiming that the King doesn't have prerogative powers.
According to you the King has to do what he is told by someone who isn't even mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[Roylion]

Moronic drivel. Again.
Absence of critical thought. Again.

You talk rubbish.

You are the one claiming that the King doesn't have prerogative powers.

I said the monarch must give royal assent when given formal advice to do so by his responsible ministers. Look carefully at the underlined words. Do try and look beyond those particular words. Show some critical thought for once.

According to you the King has to do what he is told by someone who isn't even mentioned in the Constitution.

Go back and read what I've said. Carefully this time.

 

[burge13]

Ripper weekend, 2 great footy finals, my seasons finished, few bevs after. Just great stuff

Then it dawned on me, how can I enjoy this when a picture of an old lady is on our coins. I use a debit card like a normal person, but still. This has ruined my entire weekend. I'm now rocking back and forth, vomiting.

I'm going to try and drum up the courage to go to work tomorrow. I bet this would be more enjoyable if the HoS was born here, that'd sure cure Mondayitis!!

Republic now!!

 

[Number37]

You talk rubbish.


I said the monarch must give royal assent when given formal advice to do so by his responsible ministers. Look carefully at the underlined words. Do try and look beyond those particular words. Show some critical thought for once.


Go back and read what I've said. Carefully this time.

Please reference the section of the Constitution that mentions the words "formal advice" and "responsible minister".

Thanks in advance.

 

[schneebly111]

Ripper weekend, 2 great footy finals, my seasons finished, few bevs after. Just great stuff

Then it dawned on me, how can I enjoy this when a picture of an old lady is on our coins. I use a debit card like a normal person, but still. This has ruined my entire weekend. I'm now rocking back and forth, vomiting.

I'm going to try and drum up the courage to go to work tomorrow. I bet this would be more enjoyable if the HoS was born here, that'd sure cure Mondayitis!!

Republic now!!

You exaggerate the sentiment but I’ll turn it in the opposite direction. If it isn’t really important about where our head of state lives or who’s on the coins then why the resistance to changing it to an Australian person? It’s just a ‘minor change’ after all……

 

[burge13]

You exaggerate the sentiment but I’ll turn it in the opposite direction. If it isn’t really important about where our head of state lives or who’s on the coins then why the resistance to changing it to an Australian person? It’s just a ‘minor change’ after all……

If you want to change something that requires a public vote and 'could' (not matter how unlikely) change our lives for the worse, you need to sell how it makes them better. You need to change people's minds that the status quo isn't good enough

Read through the thread, that very clearly hasn't been done

To me it will just be an expensive token exercise that achieves NOTHING tangible. It shouldn't be expensive, but it will be if you know our government. So any $ put to this I want put elsewhere unless people can prove it improves things

This hasn't happened and won't happen. The HoS doesn't bloody matter and it's peak nuffery to care who it is

 

[The Punter]

If you want to change something that requires a public vote and 'could' (not matter how unlikely) change our lives for the worse, you need to sell how it makes them better. You need to change people's minds that the status quo isn't good enough

Read through the thread, that very clearly hasn't been done

To me it will just be an expensive token exercise that achieves NOTHING tangible. It shouldn't be expensive, but it will be if you know our government. So any $ put to this I want put elsewhere unless people can prove it improves things

This hasn't happened and won't happen. The HoS doesn't bloody matter and it's peak nuffery to care who it is

There's no getting around it being expensive. Elections are expensive. Referenda campaigns in Australia are traditionally publicly funded (both sides). The before/after change may be minimal (although effect would be unknown compared to the existing stable status quo), but the process is unavoidably expensive.

 

[schneebly111]

The HoS doesn't bloody matter and it's peak nuffery to care who it is

It matters to almost every other nation on earth in that they have their own HoS.

If it’s ‘peak nuffery’ then you wouldn’t care for a minimalist change where we keep the same system but just make the GG the actual HoS rather than just the representative one?

 

[schneebly111]

There's no getting around it being expensive. Elections are expensive. Referenda campaigns in Australia are traditionally publicly funded (both sides). The before/after change may be minimal (although effect would be unknown compared to the existing stable status quo), but the process is unavoidably expensive.

The other problem is all the bogan media would just run a scaremongering campaign about it to keep the status quo - “if Australians vote to have a President that means it could be President Vladimir Putin could lead Australia!”

 

[Ghost Patrol]

If you want to change something that requires a public vote and 'could' (not matter how unlikely) change our lives for the worse, you need to sell how it makes them better. You need to change people's minds that the status quo isn't good enough

Read through the thread, that very clearly hasn't been done

To me it will just be an expensive token exercise that achieves NOTHING tangible. It shouldn't be expensive, but it will be if you know our government. So any $ put to this I want put elsewhere unless people can prove it improves things

This hasn't happened and won't happen. The HoS doesn't bloody matter and it's peak nuffery to care who it is

Why are you so invested in keeping the inbred family as HoS then?

 

[evolved2]

Why are you so invested in keeping the inbred family as HoS then?

It's cheaper.

 

[schneebly111]

It's cheaper.

Not if we just made the GG the official HoS. Could even keep the name so don’t have to change the letterheads.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

It's cheaper.

You know they are a front for church of England, yeah?

What, you support religion now because it's somehow cheaper? Does that price include the reparations for certain vile activities?

 

[burge13]

Why are you so invested in keeping the inbred family as HoS then?

I'm not. You need to convince people the status quo isn't as good as your plan. You can't

I'll take the cheaper option until then

 

[burge13]

Not if we just made the GG the official HoS. Could even keep the name so don’t have to change the letterheads.

Go for it, no one would care or know, including you.

How would this change things for you?

 

[evolved2]

Not if we just made the GG the official HoS. Could even keep the name so don’t have to change the letterheads.

Happy to support that if it could be done without a high cost. That's the sticking point for me. That change would require a vote, yes?

You know they are a front for church of England, yeah?

What, you support religion now because it's somehow cheaper? Does that price include the reparations for certain vile activities?

How will religion have any less power in a republic?

Your side of politics are invested in protecting religion these days anyway, just a different religion.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

This debate is descending into a discussion about law.

How about reframing the discussion to be one of identity? How does this nation build its own identity separate to the UK? Because until we get rid of the Union Jack, head of state and coins etc and embrace a uniquely Australian identity then we will always been seen as a little Anglo UK enclave at the south of Asia rather than the independent forward thinking nation we should be.

An important angle to this is how Aboriginal Australia relates to Government at all levels. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth so I'll just state how I personally see things;

The current political entity spanning this continent - the Commonwealth of Australia, is a colonial entity. The Head of State resides in England and his proxy is Australia's Governor-General. This State was thrust upon the Aboriginal people of this land. They didn't grow it from within, it was imposed from the outside.

As a people, they've had issues feeling like a part of this sprawling colonial entity. They can't relate to it and they can't feel its theirs.

A Republic wipes the slate clean. A Republic puts an end to the colonial relic that is the Commonwealth of Australia with Charles the Third as Monarch.

A Republic will see Aboriginal Australia as an integral part of a new nation from the outset, not subjects of a political construct that was imposed on them. I feel that Treaty, so important if negotiated between the imposed and those doing the imposing, ceases to be a factor.

I see this as VITAL to Reconciliation.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Happy to support that if it could be done without a high cost. That's the sticking point for me. That change would require a vote, yes?

How will religion have any less power in a republic?

Your side of politics are invested in protecting religion these days anyway, just a different religion.

So your 'evolution' stopped at medieval goat herders.

Interesting.

 

[evolved2]

An important angle to this is how Aboriginal Australia relates to Government at all levels. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth so I'll just state how I personally see things;

The current political entity spanning this continent - the Commonwealth of Australia, is a colonial entity. The Head of State resides in England and his proxy is Australia's Governor-General. This State was thrust upon the Aboriginal people of this land. They didn't grow it from within, it was imposed from the outside.

As a people, they've had issues feeling like a part of this sprawling colonial entity. They can't relate to it and they can't feel its theirs.

A Republic wipes the slate clean. A Republic puts an end to the colonial relic that is the Commonwealth of Australia with Charles the Third as Monarch.

A Republic will see Aboriginal Australia as an integral part of a new nation from the outset, not subjects of a political construct that was imposed on them. I feel that Treaty, so important if negotiated between the imposed and those doing the imposing, ceases to be a factor.

I see this as VITAL to Reconciliation.

That's the best argument for a republic; probably the only valid one I've seen in this thread.

 

[evolved2]

So your 'evolution' stopped at medieval goat herders.

Interesting.

No idea what you're going on about.

How does the royal family impact your life?

 

[evolved2]

I'm easily swayed. Either side can win my vote by offering an extra public holiday. Give me something to inspire my passion!