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 > General Discussion > Australian Head of State

Australian Head of State

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
We invited New Zealand (and Fiji, apparently) to join our nation way back when the idea of federation was floated. they said 'no' then, and would probably say 'no' again now.
Posted by Otokonoko, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 10:38:48 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
Ludwig says:

"The name of the new country could be…..
Auszealand…. (or Aussieland or Auzzieland)."

Ludwig, I am so disappointed in the limited range of your thinking. I expected more and better of you. What was wrong with the logical extrapolation of 'New Australia'? It not only combines elements of both names, but relegates the issue of multiculturalism to history. In one stroke, we would all of us become New Australians!

What an opportunity to disposses the aboriginal members of the community not only of the land of their forefathers, but of the right to have guilt peddled by whitefellas on their account. They, too, would be reduced to the status of New Australians by but the stroke of a pen! Its almost a Final Solution.

I can, however, foresee the Fijians hanging back in accepting any renewed offer of Anschluss. Their likely view of the prospective New Australia could probably best be epitomised by the words from an old song. 'Too many Indians and not enough Chiefs .....' is I think how it went, didn't it?
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 11:27:55 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
Foxy,
I disagree with your opinion entirely on this matter.

JH opened the debate, in Old Parliament House, on the issue and then took no further part in that debate.

After that debate concluded he to put it to a referendum, as he had previously agreed to, and that did happen. The model put to the referendum was the model chosen by the republicans, JH did NOT choose the model.

The republic was soundly defeated, even though it was supported by almost universial madia coverage. If JH spoke against it he is entitled to do so, that is not interference.

I too rallied against what I called 'the politicians republic' and, at my own expense, placed adds in my local paper bringing attention to some noted republicans such as Hitler, Edi Armin and Muselini, etc.
Looking for someone to blame? Blame me and the electorate.

No, the public voted against a republic and those supporting it have been trying to find someone to blame, other than acknowledge the fact that the public rejected it. There was no interference by JH.

Whether or not a different model may have done better in the referendum is simply hypothectical. The reality is that the republic was defeated.

Ludwig,
The kiwis wouldn't have a part of it and I don't blame them. Our politicians are nothing to crow about.
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 9:36:59 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
Dear Banjo,

There can be no honest denial of the
fact that John Howard had a very high degree of
antipathy towards the Republic and used everything
at his disposal to make public statements against
it. Now you may see that as merely expressing his
opinion - but going on shows like the 7.30 Report,
and others, as well as using his pull with newspapers,
radio talk shows et cetera,
to me comes under the heading of trying to
sway public opinion. Let's also not forget the wording
of the Referendum itself.

Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion.
As I am to mine.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 10:51:44 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
<< Ludwig, I am so disappointed in the limited range of your thinking. I expected more and better of you. >>

Ooow Forrest, I’ve just re-read my last post and… you’re right! What on Earth am I on about?

We don’t want those Kiwis to unite with Oz! Pfff, what a horrible thought!

Although the idea of a new flag with a big tough looking emu staring down at a little cowering kiwi... under the tranquil stars of the Southern Cross ... does have a certain appeal ( :>/
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 10:57:34 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 kiwis wouldn't have a part of it and I don't blame them. Our politicians are nothing to crow about. >>

But Banjo, thousands upon thousands of Kiwis come to Australia to live…because life and therefore arguably the political regime is better here.

I reckon a significant proportion of their population would be in favour of uniting with Oz, just as long as appropriate safeguards were in place to make sure that they received equality with mainland Ozzies. And the proportion has probably grown recently since Kiwiland introduced an ETS and will continue to grow as it beds in!

Hmm, what all this has got to do with the subject of this thread, I am not sure ( :> {
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 10:59:58 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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