cont'd ...

Ooops, I forgot to reply to your assumption that
I would be wanting a woman in the "top job," and
clamouring for "diversity." We actually have a
woman in the top job. And another as her Representaive
in Australia. However, No. I believe that the
qualifications for any
top position should be based on merit, not on gender
or for that matter birthright. That's one of the reasons
that I believe we should be a Republic. The British monarchy
is inequitable and undemocratic. It goes against core
Australian values of fairness, equality, and egalitarianism -
for Australian citizens to be subjects of a foreign
unelected figurehead monarch.

Under our Constitution the British monarch is the font of all
legal power in Australia and our formal head of state.
Now hundred of years after Federation - I am discussing the
possibility for Australia to finally join the world of
nations as a full equal - unshackled to any other nation.

We can still love the Queen and be excited about the royal
baby - yet still decide to make it on our own.

And as Pelican stated earlier - the Queen has left this choice
up to us. And I also am sure that she would not disapprove.
We need a head of state who will promote Australian interests
overseas - not British, which is what the Queen does.

Eventually it will be up to the people of Australia to
decide. In the meantime, we can discuss the issues.

Lexi, "Eventually it will be up to the people of Australia to
decide"

The people of Australia did decide very recently in 1999 in an expensive referendum.

Arguably since then the experience of government and political parties would not have changed their view. In fact, the opposite would apply.

Notwithstanding that, the fact remains that the people have decided but you and some others cannot accept the democratic decision of the people.

OTB, Lexi
The people decided agains the model of the Republic as offerred by the Howard Government. Polling showed that the Republic was way ahead in support, only that the narrow choice offered in the referendum meant an inevitable outcome.

Still it was the outcome it was. A new referendum offerring a better range of options will no doubt come in time.

Once more Pelican posts the simple truth.
And OTB posts his/her version of it, including within that post a slanted view of others.
It is not unpatriotic to hold any sides views on this subject.
A Republic would not change the map or our culture , and in truth we are bound to be one in time.

Dear OTB, Pelly, Belly,

As I did state in my earlier post in the 1990s
most Australians wanted to make the move to a
Republic but were divided on how to select the
Head of State and the Referendum in 1999 by the
Howard government only gave Australians one choice
and was narrowly defeated.

We should have another plebiscite (after discussions
with the community), allowing them greater options
and choices to decide if and what they want.

If it is such a good idea that people support why didn't Labor propose a change during its two terms of office? What about Rudd?

Julia Whatshername with her Greens sidekicks and the woeful independents passed the carbon tax. What prevented the Gillard/Greens/Independents alliance from putting their money where their mouths are if you say they support a republic?

What about Rudd, he exercised choice in when to call the election and he could have at the very least offered the choices you say that 'Progressives' want. He had time enough to argue the case. He could propose it as a major plant in his platform, or he could have put up a referendum at the same time.

Rudd could also have had gay marriage up for a yes/no vote as well, since you similarly believe that it has broad support. The Labor/Greens"Independent alliance could have put that through too, but didn't. Why not?

Maybe another of your gay marriage threads for 'discussion' next. Identify it properly as your proposed choice though and put your arguments up front. Be aware though that the public memory is not as short term as you wish and the unintended negative consequences of Labor and 'Progressives' dabbling in social policies are evident in daily news. -Which is also why you sledge your hated 'MSMs' for reporting the many daily examples of policy gone wrong.