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 > Republic of Australia Yes or No

Republic of Australia Yes or No

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 64
  7. 65
  8. 66
  9. Page 67
  10. 68
  11. 69
  12. 70
  13. ...
  14. 87
  15. 88
  16. 89
  17. All
In the 1950s the ABC had English accents , many wore a hat and local police put the boot into hoons. MPs were called "the honourable member", party leaders had a full term and banks acted honestly .
Whatever, no-one tips the hat to a farmer ("grazier" is out) or even to Swinehart or Harry and Meghan the TV celebs.
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 22 October 2018 5:51:15 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
Belly,

Reasons ain't benefits, and you can't find one way that a republic will make Australians better off; you want to saddle us all with the expense of creating a republic for no tangible benefit.

You and your types want to saddle the rest of us with the expense of realizing your dream; I call that selfish, in the extreme.

Where and when did I insult you, can't you find that either?
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 22 October 2018 6:00:56 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
I have followed this thread from the beginning and find that there are some who question me based on my mental competence.
I have explained the facts of my submissions but for the petulant and childlike attitudes of some, and that they demonstrate an extreme loathing of anyone THEY see as a higher caste or social status, refuse to absorb what I have said, but merely brush it aside so as to not have to change their well entrenched partisan views.
NMN an example of 'first say' is when she approved of Whitlam as our PM.
The 'last say' was when she gave him the arse.
Before anyone wants to challenge this, look up the Queens powers, and while your at it look up how many institutions of this country swear 'allegiance' to the 'Queen'.
As for any public uprising, that's always on the cards, why do you think she 'plays those cards close to her chest'?
The Monarchy of today does not 'get their hands dirty' by getting involved with day-to-day matters, that's done by others, like the GG.
Other than ceremonial commitments she will only 'step up' if and when she feels the need, otherwise she let's the countries run themselves.
So, as I've said before, she will not call out the troops if we vote to become a republic.
Like all the countries before, she will let it happen because that is the 'will of the people' and it is a different time than her ancestors.
Be grateful, previous rulers WOULD have called out the military to restore law and order if the people tried to overthrow the throne, and you all know this, so we are lucky, that she is resigned to this new wave of sentiment and has accepted it.
In the meantime it is business as usual.
Long live the Queen.
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 22 October 2018 7:18:16 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
Toni,

Here's a list, over the centuries, where the soldiery got stuck about those they were told to get stuck into, regardless of pay, or lack thereof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_d%27%C3%A9tat_and_coup_attempts_by_country

Whitlam went quietly because he was well aware that certain units of the Australian Army were ready and willing to back the Governor-General if he, Whitlam, decided to try anything smart.

Whitlam was wise in defeat although I doubt that he thought that the Australian voters would endorse his removal; as they so thoroughly did at the following election.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 22 October 2018 7:36:22 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
ALTRAV
Whitlam won an election by citizens , and advised the G Gen to appoint him which was obeyed. On dismissal by parliamentary opposition advice about blocked procedures , the GGen called for an election by citizens. The monarchy didn't select anyone.

Is Mise
The only British example last century was a newspaper article about Wilson and Mountbatten. It was rejected as treason . The Queen had no connection , are you suggesting she would send the horse guards galloping into Commons because Wilson was a dud? There are a few psychiatrists in London ...
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 22 October 2018 8:20:01 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
NMN, Whitlam did NOT get voted in as PM.
He along with his fellow party members won the election.
The party then decides who, amongst them, will be PM.
The chosen one goes to the Queen to ASK if he can form govt, yes ASK.
The GG does not do ANYTHING without the permission of or as proto-col dictates or instructed by the Queen, she gave him the power to sack Whitlam, as part of his duties as GG.
For those of you so intent on not accepting the truth about the Queen and her powers, here's the just one FACT that confirms it.
All the institutions such as parliament, the courts, the military and many more, swear allegiance to the QUEEN!
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 22 October 2018 10:27:40 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. 3
  5. ...
  6. 64
  7. 65
  8. 66
  9. Page 67
  10. 68
  11. 69
  12. 70
  13. ...
  14. 87
  15. 88
  16. 89
  17. All

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