Dear Banjo,

You're right. No one can predict exactly
how people will vote, they can only
speculate. As we all know, polls are only
good for the time and place in which
they are taken.

Anyway, it's late, I'm tired,
so I'll say good-night.

Take care.

The Australian flag!, "too be kepted in the keeping"!, and with the up most to dates of thinking, "with the definition of its collective self's", sounds the NO_GO signs of the people that are not ready yet!

Anyone see the words of religion holding us back! I do.

EVO

Part 1 of 2
Those who pursue some republic should first comprehend what the Framers of the constitution stated as quoted in this post the the following post.
.
Hansard 31-3-1891
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
QUOTE
There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to amendments of the constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be passed by an absolute majority of both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if that is done, the proposed amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people of the states to be expressed in conventions elected for the purpose, and that then if the amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions in the states it shall become law, subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the constitution might be amended, and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
Mr. BARTON:
QUOTE
Our purposes of government may be national while we preserve the utmost loyalty to the monarch whom the constitution sets over us. As the hon. member, Sir George Grey, has expressed it, we have constituted the Queen a member, and the highest member, of our parliament. The association of the Queen with the action of the commonwealth is distinct, and is firmly embedded in the whole bill. If that is done, there can be no association of the idea of republicanism with this bill.
END QUOTE
.
As I stated previously, I challenged the Crown (both State and Commonwealth ) in court and they were defeated totally because they could not disprove the quotations I used as not being applicable.

We, the people, not lawyers/judges/politicians, are who have the power to amend the constitution itself not other parts which are not part of the Constitution. The flag, the preamble and the right of the Crown are not part
To be continued

Part 2 Continued from Part 1

of the Constitution and never can be amended, neither the right of any child born in the Commonwealth of Australia to its British nationality, as the Commonwealth never had constitutional powers to define/declare the nationality of a child born.
Check out the Constitution and you find it can “naturalize aliens” but there is no power to declare/define nationality of a child born in the Commonwealth
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
QUOTE
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth-that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union. The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
.
The Commonwealth of Australia is not a country but a “Political Union” as like the European Union!
.
As the Framers of the constitution made clear the constitution did not allow for a republic!

Foxy,

'Take cricket for example, It was always white
uniforms. But today competing nations
and state teams have coloured uniforms despite
the fact that everybody insisted that "white"
was the true colour.
'

Not in real cricket. Pyjama cricket is but an abomination, the clothes just being the start of the problem. It's akin to fast food.

Mr Hlavka,

Even the Queen stated that it was up to
the people of Australia to decide on
the question of the Republic. And at
the last Referendum they voted against
one. What the future holds - Australia
will decide. And if Australia does vote
for a Republic, there will be amendments
to the Constitution and possibly a new
flag.

You can argue all you want but many Australians
have expressed their desire for a Republic including
the following politicians: Kevin Rudd, Malcolm Turnbull,
Peter Costello, to mention just a few.

Which means that under their Prime Ministership
a Republic will be on the agenda.