h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Only the Labor Party in Australia is that old" - and only then if the current ALP is considered to be the same political (rather than legal) entity as it was before the DLP split away.

;^)#

What's the more frivolous expenditure of money - spending money on health & education or spending it on deciding whether we should be a republic or not?

;^)#

Or, indeed, the same political entity it was before the last election, or the one before that etc; or the one it was yesterday for that matter...

LOL

;^)#

Thanks for everyone's contributions. I don't think I've ever has a discussion so serious or full of facts. I haven't been commenting much lately, but this is the ONLY forum I've printed out for my own personal reading.

So... at the end of the day, casting aside personal preferences, what do you all think is going to be the people's choice on the day?

Depends what kind of job Royalist Bob has done in manipulating the question on the referendum paper.

Also is there enough of a need or a sense of urgency in Australia for a president? Look at all the other republics in the world and how they came into being, most were forged in conflict. While it would be great to see this kind of political change without bloodshed, I will choose to remain cyncial at this point. But good luck anyway!

Having no say whatsoever in the matter other than as an interested party, and having only this forum as a guide, here I go anyway.

· I would like to see the referendum pass.

· I would hope this is the start of change, not the end.

· I would think the next on the adgenda would be to move to a constition that is of the Australian government's own making, rather than an act of British parliment.

· Is the preamble on the same referendum or is it separate?

· Does it really matter who opens bridges?

Thanks, Bruce, for reminding me of the possibilities.

'mouse: no, it doesn't matter who opens bridges (although asking Marvin has proved less than ideal in the past - um possibly the future) and that is precisely why we don't need to vote for the chief bridge opener.

Lots of people are saying "vote no - nothing will change, wait till a better proposal comes along". But something will change: we'll cease to be a country that (although independent) just happens to still have an irrelevant foreign monarch as its head of state and become instead a country that has _actively chosen_ to have an irrelevant foreign monarch as its head of state.

I say take a positive step - a step in the right direction - and then fight for more if you desire it. To say "No" now simply empowers those who are saying we don't need change at all. There will not be another chance for a generation or more.

< /soapbox>

How about this hypothosis -

When the votes are counted state by state the ingrained conservatism of Queensland and Western Australia will vote no.

Sheer weight of numbers in New South Wales and Victoria will force yes votes.

This would make it a 2-2 draw leaving the destiny of 18 million Australians in the hands of voters in South Australia and Tasmania - a combined population scarcly bigger than Aucklands.

Bubster: Uhm... *wave* .. hello? Choir here.

Well gang - we're still a monarchy.

Comments?

I await with interest the first letter I receive bearing a stamp carrying the picture of Queeen Camilla the 1st of Australia.

Didn't the defacto Australian President, Rolf Harris, sing well at the Rugby World Cup closing ceremony.

Your captain collecting the cup from your queen bought tears to my eyes and a lump to my throat.

Yeah right

Arise, Sir John Howard...

When The Northern Territoty finally becomes a State, Australia will be able to call it Camilla, Diana or how about Fergie. Queen Mum State has a ring to it.

This will follow the fine tradition of Victoria and Adelaide.

I find it interesting that the more avid republicans (including Barry Jones - chairman of the Constitutional Convention which recommended the form of this referendum) are now saying that they are sure the referendum would have passed 'if the referendum had been for', & that 'the majority of Australians support', an elected president of an republican Australia (& therefore, only a minority support a parliamentarily appointed president).

If this is the case, it means that the whole process leading up to this referendum is somehow lacking, in that it allowed minority interests (republicans for an appointed president) to dictate the agenda for the future of the country. What? A political process being corrupted by small vested interest groups! Gee that must be a world first!

Also, the notion that a directly elected president would receive majority support begs the question - wouldn't republicans who support the recently defeated appointed president option vote against a republic with a popularly elected president? Or would it be a case of a republic at any cost and any option is therefore acceptable?

Personally, I think if we must have a republic the appointed president is the better option - the last thing we need is another layer of government claiming a mandate from the people to influence/set government policy. The recent situation of the balance of power in the senate being by small numbers of 'independants' and minority parties is bad enough. It doesn't matter whether that balance of power currently rests with people who are doing 'good things' or not - one day it may be Adolf Hitler's political double who the government of the day is having to placate/buy off to get legislation passed. Both the major parties while in goverment have been disadvantaged or frustrated in the not so distant past by the deciding vote(s) in the senate being held by an independant or minority party.

Ahh but, I hear you cry, an elected president has no executive powers & therefore wouldn't be standing for election on a policy platform. So how then do we decide who to vote for if the candidates aren't supposed to tell us what they believe in or support?
Will it be a beauty contest?
An election based on the 'statesman' like qualities of the candidates - what are those qualities & how do we determine them without getting into political beliefs or views on policy?


;^)#

I hope I can remain impartial enough to say that I wish that the question should have been:

"Should Australia become a republic?"

That way there would be no argument. No quibbles. Straight out. If the answer was no then no it is and everyone shuts up. If the answer was yes, THEN we sit down as a nation and figure out what sort of republic we want.

Or is that too logical a process?

It may be logical but it ain't cost effective.

Why have two perfectly reasonable, carefully thought-out referenda, when one half-arsed, half-baked mish-mash referendum will do the job and keep those damn republicans quiet for a change?

The cost effective bit being where they/we got to pay lots of their mates to gad about the countryside doing research/education?

;^)#

O crap. From that comment and not having read through (yet...) I take it the referendum didn't pass? *sigh*

You blokes need to get with the times.

*ducks*

*sigh* ... No, it didn't. In a way, I'm inclined to agree with Wowbagger in that a vote of 'Should we become an independent nation in name as well as in practice?' ...

Do you happen to feel like sharing the breakdown of votes (by state)?