Scary stuff.
1 Like
No. Thatâs the point. The referendum we had would have got it done. Any yes/no type question would not have any actual effect, and to make Constitutional changes would require another that set out specific changes to specific sections of the Constitution.
1 Like
yeah sorry for sidetracking things. The point I was trying to make, was then when people voted âyesâ to Brexit, they voted for all sorts of different things, so it is difficult to know what kind of Brexit people really want. In hindsight, that was allowed to happen because the question was a yes/no thing. I should have researched what the question was for the republic because I remembered it incorrectly.
All of the people currently stalling the thing in Parliament, are doing so for different reasons. Some for selfish personal political gain, but others for genuine concerns. Itâs a shame that preferential voting in Parliament isnât a thing because that might be the only way a clear view of âWhat Parliament wantsâ might be found.
They might make progress by ruling out scenarios one-by-one until they see what they have left.
2 Likes
Really, no one cared.
Clearly, I mean, there wasnât even a topic on it on Blitz until Jun 2016.
So it seems May is still basically throwing the whole thing back to Europe and saying which do you want - a âdealâ with the no-fixed-end Customs Union requirement removed, or a âno dealâ hard break?
It really is an impossible situation for both sides. If the EU cave in on the âbackstopâ then they abandon one of their members (Ireland) needs and wants. If the UK accept the âbackstopâ then NI operates potentially forever under a different economic system to the rest of the country, forcing an effective border in the Irish Sea between parts of itâs own nation. Or the entire UK stays in a Customs Union with the EU, which wonât fly because in some ways itâs no longer a Brexit at all.
Thisâll be interesting. Stand by for a hard Brexit . And then a hard a customs border in Ireland again. Which is in breach of the Belfast Agreement. And which Ireland couldnât renegotiate even if they wanted to, without being in breach of their own EU common market obligations. Ireland too are in a catch-22 position through no doing of their own.
Or London accepts that theyâll have to do customs checks to âimportâ goods into a part of their own Kingdom - at risk of being in perpetuity - in order to not then be in breach of their own agreement with Ireland.
If Iâm understanding things correctly, it seems to me that you canât have a full, true Brexit and ALSO have an intact Belfast Agreement? But no one on any side seem willing to outright admit that?
Yeah, great. Like I said, from a long way away, it all seems impossible.
3 Likes
I disagree. The same sex referendum just said do you want same sex marriage. It didnât ask what constitutional changes were required to make the change.
The republic referendum was designed to get a No result, so Howard & Abbott could say the majority of Australia donât want a republic, when the truth was the majority of Australia does want a republic. It just couldnât agree with which republic model is the best.
5 Likes
The SSM vote wasnât a referendum, as no constitutional change was required.
1 Like
As Dingus said, the marriage vote was not a referendum, it was a plebiscite, ie a glorified opinion poll. Gay marriage was not prohibited by the Constitution; it was in the Marriage Act, which is an ordinary Act of Parliament that can be changed by the Parliament at any time. The plebiscite was a solution to a purely political problem, not a constitutional problem. It provided an excuse for a large majority of MPs to vote to remove the barriers in the Marriage Act.
Becoming a republic requires changes to the Constitution, and those changes can only be made by a referendum that sets out exactly what those changes are. The form put up by John Howard was the simplest possible form and would have left the political system exactly as it is, with the exception that the Head of State would have been called a President rather than a Governor General, and would be appointed by a two-thirds majority of MPs rather than by the Queen.
1 Like
So 2 things:
Do you really believe that the majority of Australians want a republic? I personally reckon that at least 70% do, much more than SSM.
Why didnât we have a 2 question referendum, based on firstly do you want Australia to be a republic & secondly do you want A, B or C as the preferred model (& if you answered No initially, donât bother answering the 2nd part of the referendum).
The clever part of Howardâs referendum is they knew the Australian public didnât trust pollies enough to choose a President , so that put the kibosh on the whole thing, it was doomed from the start. Whereas leave the name as GG who opens bridges & buildings & no one gives a shitt who that is. And that is all a President should be, someone who opens bridges & buildings, a figurehead.
Yes I think they probably do, although I also think that most of the majority havenât thought about what the republic would look like, and that those who have thought about it are probably fairly evenly divided between those who want the President elected directly by voters, and those who want the President appointed by a consensus (â majority or ž majority) of MPs. Personally, FWIW, I would be in favour of a republic with the President appointed by parliamentary consensus, but completely opposed to having an elected president.
Iâm a lawyer but not a constitutional expert, but I doubt that your âChoose A, B or Câ proposal would be possible under the constitution. I think itâs necessary to make a single proposal to which voters can say Yes or No.
I know the received wisdom among most republicans is that Howard set the referendum up to fail. I donât believe thatâs true at all: he put before voters the only sensible proposal that had any chance of getting up â and was the proposal put forward by the republican push. I also think he was probably sensible enough to see that it would fail â as would a proposal for direct election (which would also have had to be far more complex).
Those who think a directly elected president would keep politics out of the question just need to as themselves this. Who stands for elections. Do eminent scientists (Sir Gustav Nossal), academics (Zelman Cowan) or High Court judges (William Deane) stand for elections? Or do politicians stand for elections?
Donât forget journalistic hacks with delusions of grandeur and retired sportspeople missing the limelightâŚ
The problem with that is you need the status quo option. For example, if there is any chance of a directly elected president - Iâm voting for the monarchy and the status quo. But I was happy to vote for Howardâs proposal.
I see a directly elected president as an incredibly costly, dangerous proposal likely to bring instability to the current system.
1 Like
Iâm the opposite. Iâd rather a directly elected as a principle, but either way Iâd like absolute, clearly defined powers and how it would work set out before I vote to change anything.
But weâre drifting from Brexit so letâs keep the discussion in context of the thread topic.
1 Like
I am not sure most give a flying fark about a Republic.
The question I always is how does being a Republic make us healthier, wealthier and better off.
2 Likes
TBH I think the Australian Republican movement tracks based entirely on public perception of the British monarchy at that particular point in time. So it was at its height when everyone hated the Queen & Charles etc over Diana, but now all that seems to have been forgotten so thereâs not all that much urgency about it anywhere I can see.
Iâm nominally republican, but if I was elected PM tomorrow itâd be approximately nine millionth on my list of priorities. But of course this might change if Charles got crowned king and suddenly started issuing royal proclamations promoting homeopathy or whatever weirdness it is heâs into these days.
1 Like
Going back to Brexit, Teresa May is looking very tired.
The one who makes me sick is Corbyn. He wonât try and find a solution unless May âtakes a no-deal Brexit off the tableâ.
And just how is she supposed to do that??? No deal is what happens if thereâs no broadly supported other option, and there isnât.
The only true role a head of state should have is a âbreak glass in case of emergency.â
If a sitting government is getting a bit dictatory then there should be a check on that.
In my opinion.
I donât believe a popularly elected âPresidentâ is good for this country, and in any case Iâd call them the âSecretary of the Constitutionâ to stop them getting a big head.
I do find it stupid that our head of state is the first born son of a taxpayer funded foreign regency, but not as stupid as I once did.
I can live with it.
I can understand the young âuns not being as keen.
Mr Shelton, Corbin is not PM. He has no power at all to do anything.
And why should he fix Mayâs farkups, he will have enough to fix if and when he wins an election
Taking a no-deal brexit off the table isnât that difficult. First step would to be to pass a bill that said if a deal hadnât passed parliament by March 28, the implementation of article 50 would be pushed back for three months (or whatever is allowed). This isnât completely âoff the tableâ, but itâs a step in that direction and shows that the govt is willing to talk.
That billâd pass parliament easily. Labor and a large chunk of the conservatives would vote for it, plus all the scottish nationalists etc.
A govt that had the strength to take on its own extremists would ramp that up by passing a bill (with labor etc support) that after the above extension, if a deal STILL hadnât passed parliament, thereâd either be a referendum on a crashing no-deal brexit vs staying in, or else if a deal didnât materialise by the new deadline theyâd just revoke article 50 straight up.