The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Don’t wait until the Queen dies to become a republic > Comments

Don’t wait until the Queen dies to become a republic : Comments

By Mike Keating and David Donovan, published 5/10/2010

Republicans are used to monarchists manufacturing myths to try to scare people away from a republic.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
When will the Winsdors stop reigning over us? My guess is when King Charles puts his foot in it. No sooner under Gillard and perhaps never under Abbott.

We have reactive politicians in the major parties in this country, who are led by media magnates who employ news and current affairs editors looking for the off-beat story that may, by chance, end up driving some form of shallow, ill-considered, minimalist constitutional change that preserves the status quo interests of those who run this country.

It's all a sad reflection of our lack lustre political culture. Our 'leaders' are afraid to lay out bold visions and strategic plans before us. Any excuse will be given to avoid the overdue root and branch reforms needed for good governance in Australia.

Unless we change all the current power relationships, including moving from a monarchy to a directly elected head of state with full Presidential powers, and a constitutional role for empowered local communities while simultaneously eliminating wasteful and unneccessary state governments, then we stand no chance in realising the opportunity of achieving a massive boost to our national productivity and quality of life that can benefit the next 10 generations.
Posted by Quick response, Wednesday, 6 October 2010 11:50:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jolly you're a moron;
-First, I'm not a monarchist, retard. I'm a republican for the sole reason of introducing a better political system. I would, however, join most of the other Republicans (as indicated last Referendum) in rejecting a model that fails to do so. In other words, I fit neatly into the second category of Republican I just described.

-Second, yes, Keating and Turnbull- what guys- Keating overturned Hilali's deportation for inciting hatred against Jews, in order to win the vote of the anti-semetic wahabis in Lakemba. Turnbull, has several times as Environment Minister, been caught committing tax frauds and dishonestly using his position for personal gain. Both men lie about their opponents (including other Republicans they don't like)- and create false spin just like Howard does, and both men are EXACTLY the same as John Howard- the only difference is Howard is a dweeb who can't put on a good show of pretending to be a larrikin for the audiences.

-Oh and who was it that refused to allow other models be put into the referendum (or a generalized plebiscite like your described) in 1999 and endorsed the decision to place the model we got instead- oh yes, MALCOLM TURNBULL.

Nice choice of heroes, Jolly- I suggest you try a little harder to do some research yourself next time, because you're still showing yourself to be a confused, manipulatable bogan who takes the word of some crooked man like Howard, Turnbull or Keating as fact.
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 6 October 2010 11:53:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems that neither the ARM nor Ozns generally can face the truth. As Prof McGorry clearly enunciated in his insightful ARM 2010 lecture, Ozns are not yet mature enough for independence. In reality, Oz is not yet a nation. This requires a *decisive* act of self-determination by the citizenry, a la 1776 in America or 1965 in Singapore. The Commonwealth of Oz was enacted by fiat of the British Govt; Ozns then congratulated themselves on their cleverness and got drunk to celebrate it.

IMHO, the Republican model is quite inappropriate for Oz, even though political and financial independence is rapidly becoming essential for survival, along with a new set of representatives. The perennially-grinning idiots on the daily news make me squirm with embarrassment.
Posted by Beelzebub, Thursday, 7 October 2010 8:40:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Comrade Hazza
At least I am a self-claimed bogan with a desire for a republic Australia. You are apparently for the republicans yet shamefully cling to 'King'ship (King Hazza, it seems!!). Hee ...heee...heee... you must be really OLD. Shame .. shame on ya ... where has yar manners gone, mate? ... name calling just because my views are different from yours. Give me Keating & Turnbull any time!!
Posted by Jolly, Thursday, 7 October 2010 7:08:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Jolly but catching you out on such blatantly ignorant and unfounded presumptions, (not to mention incorrect) about whether someone is a monarchist, and being stupid enough to think Keating and Turnbull are great people just because they pretend to care about a popular issue to raise their personal profile, in my opinion, warrants additional put-downs by me.
Sorry you don't like it.

And no, I'm not "really old" either.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 8 October 2010 12:10:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The single 'good' thing about the Governor General's position is it is -nominally- apolitical.
An Australian President should be:
-popularly elected (not a rubber stamp, or tool of parliament
-have a strictly defined mandate with no say in Government policy; IOW be apolitical.
I would/have suggested that mandate should be to protect minorities (done to a minority of one) from the tyranny of majority rule. This means he/she should be in charge of Legal Aid (to ensure everyone actually is 'equal before the Law' regardless of how much money they can throw at 'Justice'); of so called 'Crown' commissions and enquiries, and be the head of all Ombudsmen.
That mandate should include all Australian citizens, including children, the armed forces and Aboriginals. Indeed, I think it should include the individual rights of Australians yet to be born.
Democratic Governments must always be the servant of the people, not the master. They must never have the right to punish innocent citizens with unfair laws.
It is inevitable and unavoidable that some people be disadvantaged by the will of the majority. On these occasions, such people should have the right to just and fair compensation, and not just be told “Tough luck”.
Such a President would be elected, not for their policies or promises (to lobby groups) but for their reputation for fairness, dedication to community service and incorruptibility.
That should make for a very cheap campaign, and truly put the role of President within the reasonable ambitions of the maximum number of Australians.
Posted by Grim, Sunday, 10 October 2010 8:15:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy