Roll out the republic!

[mick]

As far as an eminent Australian as our first President, one became available on Saturday night

One hopes you are referring to 'Boof' Lehmann.

Yeah, that's another one!

[redden whites]

Totally agree with Mick on this one with his outstanding endorsement of Kim Beasley

[mick]

Totally agree with Mick on this one with his outstanding endorsement of Kim Beasley

Yep Beasley would be ok... nice bloke

[Psyber]

Peter Costello may take that job if it were offered, and there are other past political hacks.

I wouldn't object to Kim Beasley, but I'd really rather it didn't become a pension plan for pollies!
I think having been a politician should exclude you from jobs that require balance and neutrality in representing ALL Australians.

[redden whites]

Peter Costello may take that job if it were offered, and there are other past political hacks.

I wouldn't object to Kim Beasley, but I'd really rather it didn't become a pension plan for pollies!
I think having been a politician should exclude you from jobs that require balance and neutrality in representing ALL Australians.

For the love of god.............I agree with Psyber

[Psyber]

Peter Costello may take that job if it were offered, and there are other past political hacks.

I wouldn't object to Kim Beasley, but I'd really rather it didn't become a pension plan for pollies!
I think having been a politician should exclude you from jobs that require balance and neutrality in representing ALL Australians.

For the love of god.............I agree with Psyber

We are all a complex mix of black and white and shades of grey - the world does not divide neatly into the good guys and the bad guys. I bet there are even things you could agree with John Howard about if you talked to him for a while!

[redden whites]

Peter Costello may take that job if it were offered, and there are other past political hacks.

I wouldn't object to Kim Beasley, but I'd really rather it didn't become a pension plan for pollies!
I think having been a politician should exclude you from jobs that require balance and neutrality in representing ALL Australians.

For the love of god.............I agree with Psyber

We are all a complex mix of black and white and shades of grey - the world does not divide neatly into the good guys and the bad guys. I bet there are even things you could agree with John Howard about if you talked to him for a while!

Ya probably right 'ol son but it would have to be cricket and rugby league dominated I suggest .Unless his wife slipped in a few Nicole Cornes lines before dinner then we would be alright for the night.

[Ronnie]

Funny Blueandwhite, i've travelled as well and few people are interested in our constitutional arrangements. Those that are often profess admiration for our political stability and don't have difficulty in understanding our links to the Crown, even to this day. You also ignore the fact that the Irish model has not always been proven to be satisfactory. Getting over your school boy anti Brit abuse as well might help advance the cause.
A Republic is not likely anytime soon.
Rudd is on the record stating it is not a priority in his first term and has given no commitment to advance the issue.
No one Republican model would have anything like the support required to pass at a referendum.
A Republic may well come one day, but don't think that repeated failed referendum results won't matter.

[redandblack]

This is surely a no-brainer.

Surely our head of state should be an Australian, not the Queen of England (and forget the nonsense about the GG being our head of state).

If you travel to England, you wait in line with all the non-European countries. When we lost the Ashes, our head of state gave the Poms a medal for beating us.

Time to trust ourselves.

[Psyber]

This is surely a no-brainer.

Surely our head of state should be an Australian, not the Queen of England (and forget the nonsense about the GG being our head of state).

If you travel to England, you wait in line with all the non-European countries. When we lost the Ashes, our head of state gave the Poms a medal for beating us.

Time to trust ourselves.

I've been a republican since I was 15, but I voted against the model offered at he past referendum because it would have meant a token head of state totally in the hands of, and obedient to, the parliament. I think we need a head of state with the authority to oppose the government when they do the wrong thing and go to far, and answerable only to the people of Australia, not only to our elected Oligarchy.

[RustyCage]

(and forget the nonsense about the GG being our head of state).

Dont let the truth get in the way of a good rant now R&B

[redandblack]

You know me, pafc, I'd never do that

The GG line is just one trotted out by the Monarchists to paper over a(nother) weakness in their argument.

[bulldogproud]

Roy Laird for President! Viva la republica!

[RustyCage]

You know me, pafc, I'd never do that

The GG line is just one trotted out by the Monarchists to paper over a(nother) weakness in their argument.

Well, tell me where the weakness is? The GG is our head of state.

[blueandwhite]

genuflect in front of the union jack do you ronnie...?

[redandblack]

You know me, pafc, I'd never do that

The GG line is just one trotted out by the Monarchists to paper over a(nother) weakness in their argument.

Well, tell me where the weakness is? The GG is our head of state.

The slight difficulty in your argument is that it's total crap, pafc

The Australian Constitution makes it clear that the Queen is our Head of State. The GG is her representative. The Queen can sack the GG if she wishes. When our MP's are sworn in, they swear allegiance to the Queen- the Queen of England, that is - a foreign country. There isn't the slightest doubt the Queen is the HOS. The Monarchists run the GG line because they know they're on a loser if they don't.

So the Monarchists run an argument that an unelected Australian GG is our HOS, but advocate a No vote to a referendum to allow an Australian to be our HOS.

I suppose when you have David Flint and Sophie Mirabella running the argument, you can't expect much else.

[blueandwhite]

Agreed R&B fancy our elected politicians having to swear allegiance to the monarch of another country. This is stuff of colonial times surely.

[Strawb]

It is time for a republic yet still be part of the commonwealth. South Africa and Canada are republics.

[RustyCage]

You know me, pafc, I'd never do that

The GG line is just one trotted out by the Monarchists to paper over a(nother) weakness in their argument.

Well, tell me where the weakness is? The GG is our head of state.

The slight difficulty in your argument is that it's total crap, pafc

The Australian Constitution makes it clear that the Queen is our Head of State. The GG is her representative. The Queen can sack the GG if she wishes. When our MP's are sworn in, they swear allegiance to the Queen- the Queen of England, that is - a foreign country. There isn't the slightest doubt the Queen is the HOS. The Monarchists run the GG line because they know they're on a loser if they don't.

So the Monarchists run an argument that an unelected Australian GG is our HOS, but advocate a No vote to a referendum to allow an Australian to be our HOS.

I suppose when you have David Flint and Sophie Mirabella running the argument, you can't expect much else.

Ah R&B - your argument would have been good 21 years ago, but the Australia Act (1986) changed that. The Queen cant sack the GG, only the PM with parliamentary approval can. Then, ove approval is gained, the Queen then signs off on the deal (as the GG usually signs off on anything that goes through parliament, but cant be expected to sign off on their own sacking). On top of the GG holding the Queens power Federally, the Governors have the Queens power in each state, the Queen has NO power over ANYTHING in Australia, the Australians chosen by our elected representatives do. The only time the Queen could have power in Australia is when she is physically in this country, but she has stated that even when in the country, she will not take over any roles the GG or our Governors have.

When the MPs are sworn in, the swearing of allegiance to the Queen is purely a traditionary custom, one the MPs can chose not to do (by swearing allegiance to the nation of Australia instead), some MPs chose not to, just as some MPs chose not to have any Christian references in their oath.

If you still think Im talking crap, do a bit of research into the reasons the Australia Act came about and the effect that it has had. The links below are to the actual Australia Act as passed in 1986, these are neutral sources with no bias towards the monarch or republic.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aa1986114/index.html

http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/973/pdf/AustraliaAct86.pdf

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/A53EB3E5F305B1D1CA256F7100504CBF?OpenDocument

[RustyCage]

Agreed R&B fancy our elected politicians having to swear allegiance to the monarch of another country. This is stuff of colonial times surely.

Exactly! Its a traditionary custom, nothing more. The MPs can chose to swear allegiance to the Queen or Country.