International Support of Conscientious Objectors and Deserters

Gundog · Guru

RE: King Chuck's Crowning

deverall11 · Guru

Gundog wrote:
....
I ask the question again "how will becoming a republic make the day to day lives of Australians better"

What makes you think carrying on as we are will make the day to day lives of Australian better. Typical reaction to not wanting

to make changes. Perhaps we should've retained steam powered vehicles because we do not want changes.

Perhaps we should've stuck to telegraph instead of phones because we do not want changes. IMHO having ties to the

monarchy further reminds some of us about the invasion of various countries by monarchs, invasion being the key word here.

People were going about their business until a fleet, under the directive of a monarch, invaded their country. Not referring to

Australia specifically. Australia was one of many.

dogbox · Guru

deverall11 wrote:

dorian wrote
.........

The leader of the Democratic Republic of Korea is a hereditary ruler. The people have no way of getting rid of him. All we have to do to get rid of our hereditary ruler is to say "no". Think about that.
Think about that. You're asking for the impossible. Lack of a certain something preludes some from doing just that.
A monarchist I am not. Have absolute no respect for the institution and what it stands for. I did have respect for the Queen.
Head of state elected by the public. Not by politicians, certainly not by hereditary.

a head of state elected by the public? how would that happen who would have the sort of money to run an election campaign of that magnitude,
maybe Gina Rheinhart anyone else would have to have some sort of organization backing them would they not?

correct me if i'm wrong. we elect our MPs at election time the candidates are supported by the party, private donations and if they can get enough support the electoral commission (as far as i know). they winning candidates form government and elect a leader (PM) who can be replace at any time how would we elect a head of state a what would they actually do?

even DONALD TRUMP has the backing of a party

Mariner30 · Senior Member

Dunno how it will change the life of Boofhead McGee around the corner,
But there would be a shipload of legal folk buying the 2nd Rolls Royce,

As for the rest of us wallies sitting in the ER for 8 hours and then getting the bus home on a dirt, pothole backroad

Its gonna cost billions to change statutes, legislation etc etc just to change the names on Govt House.

Thats another reason it failed last time.

Gundog · Guru

Mariner30 wrote:
Dunno how it will change the life of Boofhead McGee around the corner,
But there would be a shipload of legal folk buying the 2nd Rolls Royce,

As for the rest of us wallies sitting in the ER for 8 hours and then getting the bus home on a dirt, pothole backroad

Its gonna cost billions to change statutes, legislation etc etc just to change the names on Govt House.

Thats another reason it failed last time.

That's a good question how much are you prepared to pay to become a Republic.

dorian · Guru

deverall11 wrote:
Head of state elected by the public. Not by politicians, certainly not by hereditary.

We already have our head of state. That's what a Prime Minister is. We don't need to follow anybody else's model, so we can do without an additional president. He or she would just be redundant. We just need to jettison the Governor General, state governors, and their respective entourages and bureaucracies. That alone should save the Aussie taxpayer billions every year, more than enough money to change a letterhead or put a new head on a stamp.

About the only thing the GG does is to anoint the winners after an election so they can form a government. That ceremonial task can be delegated to the head of the Electoral Commision. It really is that simple.

The British monarchy and aristocracy are parasitic institutions founded on unearned privilege. Any self respecting individual should abhor this concept. It's shameful that pride in one's country needs to be explained and demonstrated by an immigrant rather than by a native born Australian.

Mariner30 · Senior Member

I'd much rather the billions of dollars be spent on important stuffs,
All sort of things...like health, roads, community needs and wants...lots of stuffs needs fixing.
You know...important stuffs like that,

That come way, way before changing the pictures of the queen or charlie hanging on the wall all over the joint.

dorian · Guru

Mariner30 wrote:
I'd much rather the billions of dollars be spent on important stuffs,
All sort of things...like health, roads, community needs and wants...lots of stuffs needs fixing.
You know...important stuffs like that,

That come way, way before changing the pictures of the queen or charlie hanging on the wall all over the joint.

So you agree with me.

Remember that those billions we waste on ceremonial stuff is money we spend EVERY year whereas we only need to change the stamps ONCE. After we change the stamps, those billions can then be diverted to the "important stuffs".

Mariner30 · Senior Member

Not quite sure thats quite what l posted but you can manipulate it any way you like.

You know ya gonna be put on the waiting list for a quick but short visit to the Tower of London if charlie does read this forum

A one way visit.

dorian · Guru

Mariner30 wrote:
Not quite sure thats quite what l posted but you can manipulate it any way you like.

You know ya gonna be put on the waiting list for a quick but short visit to the Tower of London if charlie does read this forum

A one way visit.

Yeah, I bet Charlie wishes he still had that power. Gone are those good old days when fat Henry used to chop and change.

DMaxer · Guru

i agree with you completely Dorian. We have a Prime Minister and there is no reason he could not also be referred to as the Head of State. The Governor General does little more than invite the political party with the majority on the floor of the parliament to form a government and then swear in the Ministers at the request of the Prime Minister. In addition, he gives the Royal Assent to Bills of Parliament and can dissolve the Parliament at the request of the Government.

Just look back at some of the absolute dunces we have had to suffer in the role of GG. Leaving aside Sir Zelman Cowen, Sir William Dean and perhaps Peter Cosgrove, the rest have been totally underwhelming. At present we have the 18 million dollar charity man with his singing wife whose only claim to fame is swearing in a bloke to heaps of ministries without anyone knowing and doing a deal to collect 18 million for some dodgy organisation. Hardly a ringing endorsement for more of the same.

We can still be part of the Commonwealth, maintain our historical links, be completely independent and look forward to a great future without these albatrosses slung around our necks. The last referendum was hijacked by the then PM who spent his life tugging the forelock to the Brits. All that is needed to be asked is "Do you want a Republic?" If the answer is returned in the affirmative the various models can then be debated and the preferred model put to the people.

Just how ridiculous is it in this day and age having some bloke roll up in a gold coach, heaps of medals stuck on his chest for doing God only knows what, having a crown placed on his noggin and then everyone screeching out something about him living forever at 8pm our time.

I admired the late Queen. She was a person of her time and loved and respected world wide. This bloke is not the Queen and that time has passed. Time for us to move on.

Cuppa · Guru

Some will agree with what is said in this video, some wont. Personally I don't much like some of the presentation, but find it difficult to disagree with the message presented.

Gundog · Guru

Cuppa wrote:
Some will agree with what is said in this video, some wont. Personally I don't much like some of the presentation, but find it difficult to disagree with the message presented.

What a tosser, served 6 years in the British Army, he spent 9 months in a military prison for being AWOL and refusing to return to his unit in Afganistan.

All I see is a bitter twisted individual who couldnt hack it.

Cuppa · Guru

Gundog wrote:
Cuppa wrote:
Some will agree with what is said in this video, some wont. Personally I don't much like some of the presentation, but find it difficult to disagree with the message presented.

What a tosser, served 6 years in the British Army, he spent 9 months in a military prison for being AWOL and refusing to return to his unit in Afganistan.
All I see is a bitter twisted individual who couldnt hack it.

Not that I think his military history makes any difference to his views on Royalty, where did you dig up the dirt on him. I knew nothing of his history. Still don't other than from your post. Perhaps he had good reason to prefer prison to returning to Afghanistan? A little bit of dirt goes a long way. I didn't think he presented as bitter & twisted, but then I had no reason to.

dorian · Guru

Gundog wrote:

What a tosser, served 6 years in the British Army, he spent 9 months in a military prison for being AWOL and refusing to return to his unit in Afganistan.
All I see is a bitter twisted individual who couldnt hack it.

https://en.connection-ev.org/article-1117

"According to figures published by the British ministry of war, more than 17,000 British soldiers have gone AWOL since 2003. They have clearly voted with their feet: Against the highly controversial war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Gundog · Guru

dorian wrote:
Gundog wrote:

What a tosser, served 6 years in the British Army, he spent 9 months in a military prison for being AWOL and refusing to return to his unit in Afganistan.
All I see is a bitter twisted individual who couldnt hack it.
https://en.connection-ev.org/article-1117
"According to figures published by the British ministry of war, more than 17,000 British soldiers have gone AWOL since 2003. They have clearly voted with their feet: Against the highly controversial war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."

There is no military conscription in Britian, the supposed 17,000 soldiers who went AWOL since 2003 does not quantify where the the offence occured, if you turned up late for duty by a couple of hours would be charged with being AWOL, clearly the last part of your post is BS.

Look at the header of the web site you have quoted, not very patriotic, like a lot of the web site you quote rabble rousing peanuts.

International Support of Conscientious Objectors and Deserters

Cuppa · Guru

Gundog wrote:
dorian wrote:
Gundog wrote:

What a tosser, served 6 years in the British Army, he spent 9 months in a military prison for being AWOL and refusing to return to his unit in Afganistan.
All I see is a bitter twisted individual who couldnt hack it.
https://en.connection-ev.org/article-1117
"According to figures published by the British ministry of war, more than 17,000 British soldiers have gone AWOL since 2003. They have clearly voted with their feet: Against the highly controversial war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."
There is no military conscription in Britian, the supposed 17,000 soldiers who went AWOL since 2003 does not quantify where the the offence occured, if you turned up late for duty by a couple of hours would be charged with being AWOL, clearly the last part of your post is BS.
Look at the header of the web site you have quoted, not very patriotic, like a lot of the web site you quote rabble rousing peanuts.
International Support of Conscientious Objectors and Deserters

Rabble Rousing Peanuts. Unpatriotic.

Is it more patriotic to support wrong because you are told it is the right thing to do, or to speak out against it.

Izabarack · Guru

Gundog wrote:
please explain how the day to day lives will be better by becoming a republic.

Transitioning to a status of Republic would have a couple of benefits. Administratively, having an Australian Head of State would do away with a lot of useless admin in the process of enacting legislation into Law. Emotionally, Australia would truely be a Peer nation rather than a child of Britain and it follows that being an Australian citizen in a country independant of mostly historical links to Britain would be a boost in Self- Esteem. Rather than having a flag demonstrating subservience to Britain, we could have a national flag that represents this country, alone, and one that does not specifically ignore the long time history of how we got to where we are today. Getting rid of the embassing dirge that is our current National Anthem would provide an opportunity to give our younger generations something they could own. Australia could become a Republic tomorrow (essentially) by keeping much of the current political structure and only changing the meaning of some positions. Appointing the current Governor General position as an Austalian Head of State, and a few changes to letterheads of current elected positions, and we are up and running. Sorting out an updated Constitution will take years so why not do a minimal job now and get on with the big step of declaring the Republic og Australia. The one thing we must avoid is a popularly elected Head of State. I point to the USA as an example of how that works (doesn't) in practice.

dorian · Guru

Izabarack wrote:
The one thing we must avoid is a popularly elected Head of State. I point to the USA as an example of how that works (doesn't) in practice.

All our GGs have been appointed, and look how that turned out.

shakey55 · Senior Member

Not unless it is on at Wilpena Pound

dogbox · Guru

how would we select/appoint/elect a head of state?

how have other members of the commonwealth managed to diverse themselves of the royal family as a head of state without having a civil war?

dorian · Guru

dogbox wrote:
how would we select/appoint/elect a head of state?

how have other members of the commonwealth managed to diverse themselves of the royal family as a head of state without having a civil war?

This explains one of Charlie's medals.

Barbados becomes a republic and parts ways with the Queen:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-59470843

Speaking as the guest of honour at the event, Prince Charles reiterated the continuing ties between the two nations despite the constitutional status change.

He described the moment as a new beginning before being awarded the prestigious Order of Freedom of Barbados by the new president.

Gundog · Guru

dogbox wrote:
how would we select/appoint/elect a head of state?

That's the problem and a big reason why 1999 Republican Vote failed, at that time the Canberra swamp wanted to appoint the President, the ARM (Australian Republican Movement) could not agree on the way the president is chosen, therefore part of the ARM sided with the No case.
If the prefered model to elect a president by a popular vote, would different to the way America votes for its President, our president would have no powers other than those reserve powers as assigned by the consitiution.
The ARM's model is sort of 11 people are chosen, each state and territory government nominate 1 person, I'm not sure where the other 4 come from maybe from the swamp. they dont say the method of vote be 1st past the post, the most votes wins, or a preferential vote either way you could end witha drovers dog.
If we are to choose a president ex pollies and party hacks should be exclude, along with sports stars and pop stars because most of them are as thick as two short planks.

Being it mainly ceremonial role maybe the three services Navy, Army and AirForce have the role in rotation perhaps the Cheif of the Defence Force at retirement moves to the Presidential role.

-- Edited by Gundog on Saturday 6th of May 2023 09:12:01 AM

Craig1 · Guru

" Our ABC " reporter in England interviews Our Prime Minister yesterday. His questions, " as a Republican Supporter " why are you here?, Albo to his credit shot him down, I am here as P M of Australia and will honour the role.

Then said ABC reporter brings Andrew and unborn heirs into the mix, " you will swear allegiance to all of these etc". But ABC is for all Australians and is to present unbiased commentary. Shame on you Ita.

DMaxer · Guru

Who in their right man would inflict another military person on Australians after the likes of Michael Jeffreys and the present dunce, David Hurley and the singing parrot?

Why do we need a head of state additional to a prime minister? By having the prime minister as head of state we get to choose who our fearless leader is every election cycle.

Gundog · Guru

DMaxer wrote:
Who in their right man would inflict another military person on Australians after the likes of Michael Jeffreys and the present dunce, David Hurley and the singing parrot?
Why do we need a head of state additional to a prime minister? By having the prime minister as head of state we get to choose who our fearless leader is every election cycle.

Someone has to have the reserve powers to be able to sack a dud government.

dorian · Guru

Gundog wrote:
DMaxer wrote:
Who in their right man would inflict another military person on Australians after the likes of Michael Jeffreys and the present dunce, David Hurley and the singing parrot?
Why do we need a head of state additional to a prime minister? By having the prime minister as head of state we get to choose who our fearless leader is every election cycle.
Someone has to have the reserve powers to be able to sack a dud government.

Who will sack a dud president, or a dud monarch?

Gundog · Guru

dorian wrote:
Gundog wrote:
DMaxer wrote:
Who in their right man would inflict another military person on Australians after the likes of Michael Jeffreys and the present dunce, David Hurley and the singing parrot?
Why do we need a head of state additional to a prime minister? By having the prime minister as head of state we get to choose who our fearless leader is every election cycle.
Someone has to have the reserve powers to be able to sack a dud government.
Who will sack a dud president, I would expect the constitution would have powers outlined where if a president needed removed, a joint sitting of both houses would have a majority of say 75% of the members for dismissal.

dogbox · Guru

DMaxer wrote:

Who in their right man would inflict another military person on Australians after the likes of Michael Jeffreys and the present dunce, David Hurley and the singing parrot?
Why do we need a head of state additional to a prime minister? By having the prime minister as head of state we get to choose who our fearless leader is every election cycle.

please humor me but i do not think we actually choose our PRIME MINISTER we vote to select a rep to be our MP if that rep is part of the majority in parliament they form a government, the choice of PRIME MINISTER is for them to decide an we have seen how many times we have had a change of PM with no input from the voting public.

DMaxer · Guru

That is true. However, we know that the leader of the party at the time of any election is going to be PM if that party has a majority or support on the floor to form a government. If bills were law once they passed both houses and did not need royal assent then really the head of state is just ceremonial. A vote of no confidence will also remove a government. Amend the constitution to require an election if that occurs and there you go.

Inter­na­tio­nal Support of Conscien­tious Objec­tors and Deserters

Inter­na­tio­nal Support of Conscien­tious Objec­tors and Deserters

International Support of Conscientious Objectors and Deserters

International Support of Conscientious Objectors and Deserters