The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

Who will you vote for?

  • Liberals

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Labor

    Votes: 21 31.8%
  • Nationals

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Greens

    Votes: 21 31.8%
  • Independant

    Votes: 15 22.7%
  • The Clive Palmer shit show

    Votes: 4 6.1%
  • Shooters and Fishers Party

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • One Nation

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Donkey/Invalid vote

    Votes: 3 4.5%

  • Total voters
    66

brisneyland

Likes Dirt
-England is part of Australia's history whether we like that or not
-The flag is already a well established flag in the world its well known to be Australian.
-most importantly for me is those who fought and gave their lives for this country did so under that flag.
1. HISTORY. Not present, and not future.
2. I would argue that it is not well known at all, outside the Commonwealth.
3. They didn't give their lives for a bit of bloody cloth, they fought for a nation, culture and identity that is much bigger than a bloody flag!
 

John U

MTB Precision
I like that concept but does changing the flag actually make any progression really? I mean it doesn't make anything really change except we can say we have our own flag now. Id rather see progression that offer benefits rather than progression on paper or on a flag that lead to nothing except a happy feeling of progression.

I think the better debate is if we should become a republic. Of which I don't really care. I feel like its going to ,again an effort to show progression on paper than really show progression that makes a change. Unless becoming a republic or changing the flag actually benefits and progresses us in a way that matters I see no reason to spend time and money changing either one.
The progress could be the country and its' people really recognizing who we are made up of and the fact that the land was inhabited when the first fleet arrived here. That recognition could benefit a lot of people. Another point I believe is that we'll keep coming back to doing it over and over until it eventually happens. Why not save time and money and just get it done. Same goes for becoming a republic and recognizing indigenous Australians in the constitution.
 

wombat

Lives in a hole
I think the better debate is if we should become a republic. Of which I don't really care. I feel like its going to ,again an effort to show progression on paper than really show progression that makes a change. Unless becoming a republic or changing the flag actually benefits and progresses us in a way that matters I see no reason to spend time and money changing either one.
Allowing our government to pass any law without needing the approval of an English monarch is a pretty damn good argument for a republic I think.
 

Dene Dweller

Likes Dirt
I use to want to change the flag and become a republic but as I've become older I don't want either to change. For me the current flag is Australia's identity.

If we did change it and it didn't include the southern cross what will the bogans do?

When the issues of productivity, investment and employment opportunities are sorted then I'll entertain the debate. Until then it's the best political diversionary tactic around.
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
Allowing our government to pass any law without needing the approval of an English monarch is a pretty damn good argument for a republic I think.
It's just a stamp, the queen has no legal ability to change our laws.
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
It's never been tested, but the GG still holds a position of considerable power. Is it really a link we ought to maintain?
Well, the Australia Act in 1986 clearly lays out that the queen cannot change our laws and the highest court on the land is the Australian High Court (not the Privy Court in London). The GG's role is rather procedural and contained by the Constitution.

Changing this is really little more than cosmetics.

Personally, I couldn't care less if we're a republic or not or if we change the flag. Just not something that matters to me, I'm more concerned about real things such as defence and foreign policy, energy security, tax reform, etc.
 

wombat

Lives in a hole
Well, the Australia Act in 1986 clearly lays out that the queen cannot change our laws and the highest court on the land is the Australian High Court (not the Privy Court in London). The GG's role is rather procedural and contained by the Constitution.

Changing this is really little more than cosmetics.
I never mentioned changing laws, but royal assent is still required for passing a bill, isn't it? So the potential exists to deny the creation of new laws.

Of course I don't think we're ever likely to see that power exercised on the monarchs command, but if its all just pomp and ceremony why not just piss it off?

And do it before baby George comes to power, that little guy looks shifty, and I don't trust him...
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
- Yes, but it's just a rubber stamp and it's a bit out there, to put it politely, to think that the stamp would ever be withheld for some reason. The Queen is on record in supporting Australia's decision to become a republic should it choose to do so. It's difficult, to say the least to imagine a situation where the Queen would choose to exercise any any influence on Australian laws being passed. And 'changing laws' is the same thing - refusing to stamp a bill because the monarch does not agree with some part of it. That's changing our laws.

- If it's all just pomp and ceremony, why bother wasting time changing it? It would be a huuuuugely expensive exercise to change the constitution, currency, letter heads, protocols, etc.

- Never trust a baby.
 

driftking

Wheel size expert
I use to want to change the flag and become a republic but as I've become older I don't want either to change. For me the current flag is Australia's identity.

If we did change it and it didn't include the southern cross what will the bogans do?

When the issues of productivity, investment and employment opportunities are sorted then I'll entertain the debate. Until then it's the best political diversionary tactic around.
I think this is a positive change we can disassociate with them ;) haha.
I bet tattoo removal will boom if that happens.

And do it before baby George comes to power, that little guy looks shifty, and I don't trust him...
hahaha thanks for that laugh wombat.
 

PINT of Stella. mate!

Many, many Scotches
I think changing the flag could represent progress as a country.
I think changing our government would be a greater sign of progress.


Personally I thnk there are a thousand things more pressing at the moment than a piece of cloth and whether or not some old bat 13,000 miles away holds a symbolic but utterly meaningless position in our government.
 
Last edited:

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
Go back and read that post again ^^^^^^^^^^









Seriously, energy security, youth unemployment, regional relations, defence policy, demographic challenge, etc.

Flags and ceremonial pomp are red herrings.
 

wombat

Lives in a hole
And 'changing laws' is the same thing - refusing to stamp a bill because the monarch does not agree with some part of it. That's changing our laws.
Semantically, I disagree. You can't change something that doesn't exist, other than brining it into existence; one state of non-existence is the same as another, effectively nothing. And the queen can't bring something into existence, she can only prevent a bill from passing, so at best she can resist change.

And yes, overall I agree that the republic debate is of much less significance than a lot of other issues that the country faces. But is it really beyond us to dicscuss/deal with little issues as well as big ones?
 

al_

Likes Dirt
- If it's all just pomp and ceremony, why bother wasting time changing it? It would be a huuuuugely expensive exercise to change the constitution, currency, letter heads, protocols, etc.
It isn't just about pomp and ceremony. Installing an Australian head of state elected by voters would represent significant progress. Having a purely symbolic foreign monarch since colonisation has been offensive to indigenous Australians and frankly quite embarrassing.

Becoming independent isn't strictly essential for our day-to-day survival, but that is no justification for maintaining an outdated and irrelevant form of government. Even on purely symbolic grounds, surely we don't want our sovereignty held by a Brit born into a life of inhereted privilege?

Becoming a republic and recognising indigenous Australians in the constitution are inevitable. I think we just need to get on with it.
 

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
And as a nation we actually do really well in the commonwealth games. If we became a republic we would loose that part of our national success. Better to pull out of the Olympics say.
 
It isn't just about pomp and ceremony. Installing an Australian head of state elected by voters would represent significant progress. Having a purely symbolic foreign monarch since colonisation has been offensive to indigenous Australians and frankly quite embarrassing.

Becoming independent isn't strictly essential for our day-to-day survival, but that is no justification for maintaining an outdated and irrelevant form of government. Even on purely symbolic grounds, surely we don't want our sovereignty held by a Brit born into a life of inhereted privilege?

Becoming a republic and recognising indigenous Australians in the constitution are inevitable. I think we just need to get on with it.
All symbolic change that will do little for indigenous disadvantage. The royals have never been so popular in Australia so the republic movement is pretty much dead. But never say never.
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
I keep about half an eye on the indigenous debate and honestly I think they are much more concerned with a number of issues rather than if we are a republic or not. Honestly, that seems like the biggest red herring of all.

I understand Wombat's point that we can have this discussion as well as dealing with the big issues, can't disagree there. I guess I'd just prefer to see all that money spent on something where we will actually get a real return from (rather than a symbolic return) such as education, defence, diplomatic corps, environment, booze, aged care, universities, oh god, please, universities........
 

scblack

Leucocholic
I keep about half an eye on the indigenous debate and honestly I think they are much more concerned with a number of issues rather than if we are a republic or not. Honestly, that seems like the biggest red herring of all.
I've never heard an abo complain about how the Westminster system is repressing them. Yes I think that argument has been plucked from nowhere.
 
Top