Political Crossfire Forums

[Lucky Luke]

thundertaker wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: What would austrilians say to becoming part of a federal republic with Britian and other former empire states?

The realities of economics stand in the way. It's a nice idea in theory, unforutnately, our economic interests are different. Australia's trade links are mainly with Asia, and ours are with Europe.
However, I would certainly be in favour of introducing common citizenship within the commonwealth, especially if the continental Europeans have complete and unfettered access to the UK thanks to the EU.
Commonwealth citizens already have almost all the rights of British Citizens in the UK. They can vote, join the army, the civil service, stand for political office etc. They do however, need a visa to stay in the country, and all I would propose would be to remove the need for a visa.

As for lucky luke dreaming of an independent scotland within his lifetime, forget it. The scots enjoy too many subsidies courtesy of the English Taxpayer, and unless the UK government is doing something catestrophically wrong or oppressive, people are far more inclined to go with the devil they know.
I won't repeat what I have already stated about the monarchy being an 'english' monarchy, because as I already illustrated, they are more scottish than english anyway......

No need for dreaming a referendum will do and this time no lies from London please:

Quote: Q7 Do you think there should or should not be a referendum held to measure the level of public support for full Scottish independence from the United Kingdom?

Yes, there should be a referendum...................71 %
No, there should not be a referendum...............21 %
Don't know...................................................... 8 %

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

thundertaker wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: A.As a commonwealth citizen i want the viza to saty

As a Cypriot, you are a commonwealth AND and EU citizen. A Cypriot in Britain would therefore almost be a defacto British citizen if he came to Britain. You would only be a semi-foreigner in Britain, along with the Irish....

Quote: B.The Scots dont need the English.They have oil in Scotland.Plus FREEDOM cannot be bought.I am in favor of a free Scotland ,Ireland and Wales...

Polls indicate that most Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish want to remain British. British citizens already have freedom (notwithstanding the regular onslaughts against our civil liberties by this scots-dominated New Labour government)......

What about this poll Thundertaker?

Quote: Q7 Do you think there should or should not be a referendum held to measure the level of public support for full Scottish independence from the United Kingdom?

Yes, there should be a referendum...................71 %
No, there should not be a referendum...............21 %
Don't know...................................................... 8 %

:-D
:-D

[thundertaker]

Support for a referendum and support for independence are two seperate things. How do you know that many of those who support a referendum are Unionists who wish to call out the Nats and shut them up?

Other polls indicate that Scots wish to remain in the UK:

Quote: That view was fairly widely shared across the country. Finally, two constitutional questions. About a third - 33% - backed Scottish independence as against 63% who wanted the status quo, Scotland within the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/scotland/4429781.stm

Polls are pretty unreliable, only a referendum would display the scot's true attitude to independence......

[Snow Patrol]

Lucky Luke wrote: Snow Patrol wrote:
Yes i saw that, i do read my own links. However what you seem to fail to grasp is that there is no time reference on that question. All it states is that people believe there should be a referendum on independence at some point, as i and most others i know who take an interest on the subject do. I did not say Scottish people did not want a referendum ever on the subject, i said there was not enough demand for it at the moment:

Snow Patrol wrote: They have not been asked because they don't want it, where's the mass street protests demanding it, where's the mass independence/SNP rally's, where's the support for it in the polls? where's the demands for a referendum? why is there declining support for those parties favouring independence over devolution?
Again, your reading comprehension seems to be lacking.
Can we agree that a referendum should be in the agenda in the next 1 to 2 years now that devolution has been given a chance?
If there was demonstrable support for it to take place in the next year or two then it will be on the agenda.

Lucky Luke wrote: You know and I know that how the SNP does in the polls doesn't mean that a referendum should be on or not, a lot of people voting Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative would like a referendum but won't vote SNP and shouldn't have to vote SNP to get it. Most competent Scottish politicians are not from the SNP because they are passionate about politics and want to make a difference today, they would do a great job for Scotland tomorrow.
I have at no point said support for the SNP was the be all end all of support for independence. AGAIN, look at what i said:

Snow Patrol wrote: They have not been asked because they don't want it, where's the mass street protests demanding it, where's the mass independence/SNP rally's, where's the support for it in the polls? where's the demands for a referendum? why is there declining support for those parties favouring independence over devolution?
I mentioned the SNP once, i don't see any of that other stuff happening. Until i do or until some other significant indications of widespread demand for a referendum on the issue in the here and now, not at some point in the future, become apparent then i see no reason to hold a referendum at this point.

[Lucky Luke]

thundertaker wrote: Support for a referendum and support for independence are two seperate things. How do you know that many of those who support a referendum are Unionists who wish to call out the Nats and shut them up?

Other polls indicate that Scots wish to remain in the UK:

Quote: That view was fairly widely shared across the country. Finally, two constitutional questions. About a third - 33% - backed Scottish independence as against 63% who wanted the status quo, Scotland within the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/scotland/4429781.stm

Polls are pretty unreliable, only a referendum would display the scot's true attitude to independence......

That is the point let's find out!

I can see it already as soon as Scotland's voters will shift from Labour to other parties London will ask us if we want more devolution, the status quo or full independence, the treachery continues.

Before devolution Scotland would have voted for independence if asked in fact Scotland did when asked.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Snow Patrol wrote:

If there was demonstrable support for it to take place in the next year or two then it will be on the agenda.

I have at no point said support for the SNP was the be all end all of support for independence. AGAIN, look at what i said:

I mentioned the SNP once, i don't see any of that other stuff happening. Until i do or until some other significant indications of widespread demand for a referendum on the issue in the here and now, not at some point in the future, become apparent then i see no reason to hold a referendum at this point.

There is a support for a referendum on independence we know that much. As for a demonstrable support for a referendum what do you propose a referendum to decide if we should have a referendum or do you want chaos in the streets and the SNP to start an armed struggle?

What are we waiting for? A sign from god or the queen to say we can?
A referendum would clear the air and give devolution a better chance if Scotland vote no to independence.

:-D
:-D

[Snow Patrol]

Lucky Luke wrote: Snow Patrol wrote:
If there was demonstrable support for it to take place in the next year or two then it will be on the agenda.

I have at no point said support for the SNP was the be all end all of support for independence. AGAIN, look at what i said:

Snow Patrol wrote: They have not been asked because they don't want it, where's the mass street protests demanding it, where's the mass independence/SNP rally's, where's the support for it in the polls? where's the demands for a referendum? why is there declining support for those parties favouring independence over devolution?
I mentioned the SNP once, i don't see any of that other stuff happening. Until i do or until some other significant indications of widespread demand for a referendum on the issue in the here and now, not at some point in the future, become apparent then i see no reason to hold a referendum at this point.
There is a support for a referendum on independence we know that much. As for a demonstrable support for a referendum what do you propose a referendum to decide if we should have a referendum or do you want chaos in the streets and the SNP to start an armed struggle?

What are we waiting for? A sign from god or the queen to say we can?
A referendum would clear the air and give devolution a better chance if Scotland vote no to independence.

:-D
:-D
No, there's support for a referendum to be held on the subject at some point, not for it to be held at the moment. Your use of, frankly idiotic, hyperbole doesn't hide the fact there is no demonstrable support for a referendum at the moment.

It's not my fault you confuse commitment to the principle of it at some point in the future as evidence for wide scale demand for it now.

[Lucky Luke]

Snow Patrol wrote:
No, there's support for a referendum to be held on the subject at some point, not for it to be held at the moment. Your use of, frankly idiotic, hyperbole doesn't hide the fact there is no demonstrable support for a referendum at the moment.

It's not my fault you confuse commitment to the principle of it at some point in the future as evidence for wide scale demand for it now.

1 to 2 years I wrote Snow Patrol, this is not too much asking when you see the poll from your own link in favour of the referendum and after the revelation that Scotland was lied to at the last one.

:-D
:-D

[Snow Patrol]

Lucky Luke wrote: Snow Patrol wrote:
No, there's support for a referendum to be held on the subject at some point, not for it to be held at the moment. Your use of, frankly idiotic, hyperbole doesn't hide the fact there is no demonstrable support for a referendum at the moment.

It's not my fault you confuse commitment to the principle of it at some point in the future as evidence for wide scale demand for it now.

1 to 2 years I wrote Snow Patrol, this is not too much asking when you see the poll from your own link in favour of the referendum and after the revelation that Scotland was lied to at the last one.

:-D
:-D
Lolz, carrot on a stick.

[Irish Gal]

Come on Aussies, step it up!

Stop being Surrender Monkeys to the British!

I live in your country and absolutley love it!, One of the most beatiful places in the world.

You deserve your own identity and flag, stop living in the shadow of the empire, like some crumbling old colony.

Same goes for you Kiwis!

[maxtsu]

Irish Gal wrote: Come on Aussies, step it up!

Stop being Surrender Monkeys to the British!

I live in your country and absolutley love it!, One of the most beatiful places in the world.

You deserve your own identity and flag, stop living in the shadow of the empire, like some crumbling old colony.

Same goes for you Kiwis!
Hey Irish Gal.
If ur in Sydney. Have a look at the the old statue of Queen Vic outside QVB on the Town Hall side.
Read the plaque. You'll understand and laugh.

[Irish Gal]

Actually, Im in Western australia.

What does it say?

[Ch33kY]

Irish Gal wrote: Come on Aussies, step it up!

Stop being Surrender Monkeys to the British!

I live in your country and absolutley love it!, One of the most beatiful places in the world.

You deserve your own identity and flag, stop living in the shadow of the empire, like some crumbling old colony.

Same goes for you Kiwis!

Totally agree :-D

The Queen is evil. Refer to my sig as proof.

[maxtsu]

Irish Gal wrote: Actually, Im in Western australia.

What does it say?
Finally, after searching my hard drive.
The QVB (Queen Victoria Building) is one of the older buildings in Central Sydney. Nice shopping mall.
Outside it, there is an ugly statue of Queen Vic, quite a large one...


Now, heres the amusing part. Read the plaque under the statue...



Well...you know the phrase..
"One persons garbage, is another persons treasure"

[Ch33kY]

maxtsu wrote: Irish Gal wrote: Actually, Im in Western australia.

What does it say?
Finally, after searching my hard drive.
The QVB (Queen Victoria Building) is one of the older buildings in Central Sydney. Nice shopping mall.
Outside it, there is an ugly statue of Queen Vic, quite a large one...


Now, heres the amusing part. Read the plaque under the statue...



Well...you know the phrase..
"One persons garbage, is another persons treasure"

:lol:

It sure beats that sheep statue/monument thing by the harbour. I've got a pic of my mate pretending to fcuk it.

[Irish Gal]

Thats Hilarious!

Ill have to check it out when I get to Sydney in a few months!

[maxtsu]

Ch33kY wrote: :lol:

It sure beats that sheep statue/monument thing by the harbour. I've got a pic of my mate pretending to fcuk it.
somehow I get the feeling I don't want to see that photo....
is ur mate Kiwi?
:lol:

[raf]

I have a few problems with some people's views on this whole republic topic, which seems to be due to pure ignorance and stubbornness, particularly by the one who calls themselves SPOTTEDGREENDUCK. The following are my problems:

1) No benefits of a republic – what benefits are you talking about? Financial? Political? What about nationalistic benefits? Is national pride and patriotism not a benefit; a sense of being Australian with an Australian head of state. Mate, there are benefits; you just have to open your mind.
2) Australia will no longer be in the Commonwealth – This is an argument which I have seen a lot, though it holds no truth what-so-ever. If the people choose a republic, we can still be a part of the Commonwealth. There are many examples, Canada and South Africa just to name a few. The only time we should every exit the Commonwealth would be if the people choose a system in which the republic would leave the Commonwealth, though that seems unlikely as many people on this thread alone would like to stay in the Commonwealth.
3) “We maintain ancestral ties to our original motherland” – SPOTTEDGREENDUCK said it himself, 1/3 of aussies have ties with the UK. Firstly, the UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and some of the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, as seen in this thread, have their own problems with the English monarchy. Therefore that 1/3 doesn’t represent those people of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish heritage who want a republic. Secondly, that is only 1/3 of the population, what happened to the other 2/3s? Quite obviously, there are more people without ties to the UK; we view ourselves as a multi-cultural society but our current system doesn’t not represent it as such. They, myself included, feel no loyalty towards England and her monarchy.
4) British military superiority to back us up –First of all, the British don’t have the “military superiority” anymore and secondly, the problem of this statement lies with our geographic location. Britain is a long way from Australia; hypothetically speaking, if Indonesia invades us tomorrow, how long will it take for the British to mobilise, and bring their troops over here? Take a trip through history and you will see this has already happened. During WWII, we were facing the threat of a Japanese invasion. We realised with the fall of Singapore that the British could no longer solely protect us. This was due to the fact of distance between countries. That was the start of our military negotiations with the USA, whom we saw had the “military superiority” and was closer to our region of the Asia-Pacific. The result? The ANZUS treaty. Even if we do choose to become a republic, the British, as a result of strong historical ties and us still being a member of the Commonwealth, can still defend us. Therefore, this argument is invalid.
5) The excellent benefits to do with foreign affairs and trade for being in the Commonwealth – Again see point 2. We can still be in the Commonwealth even if we are a republic, and therefore are still entitled to those benefits, of which there are not that many. We have foreign affairs benefits, yes I agree, someone pointed them out. However, there are no trade benefits at present, of being in the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is not a trading bloc. We gain no trading benefits through being a member of the Commonwealth.
6) There are factors why Australia cannot stand on its own two feet - Please, tell me, what factors? We are pretty much independent now, we govern ourselves, the only thing a republic will do is change the queen of England as the head of state to an Australian; be it a President or what ever. Australia is classified a first world country; we’re in the top 20 in GDP and GDP per capita and have the 3rd highest standard of living according to the UN HDI in the world. So please, explain again why we cannot stand on our own two feet? As far as I’m concerned we can stand on our own two feet pretty well.
7) The cost – Yes, there are costs, but I believe they are worth it. There are costs in everything. What are the costs to change the back of the coins when a monarch dies? The cost is only short-term; the cost of the referendum is no different to that of an election. We can afford the cost that is not the issue, the issue with cost is whether it is worth it, and as shown in my arguments, it is well worth it.
8) There is no point - The classic “if it ain’t broke, than why fix it” approach. If we took that stance on everything, there would be no progress. There was nothing wrong with walking or riding a horse, why invent the car? There are always flaws in every system; you can’t say that nothing is broke. There is always room for improvement, in this case in the form of a republic.
9) My family and I did not fight to protect any other flag except for the one with that has a union jack on it - In terms of the flag, if you look back at history, you will see that the argument about veterans fighting for the Australian flag is false. There are 3 versions of the current flag; the current national flag, the blue ensign, the red ensign and the white ensign. The blue ensign was originally only used by the state, the red ensign by the people and the white ensign for the navy. The Union Jack however, was thought of as superior to all these. So when they were flown for any reason, the Union Jack flew as well, above them all. Thus, during the world wars, the Australian forces fought under the Union Jack, not the Australian flag, unless they served in the navy. The flags you see in old photos are the red ensign as it was the civil flag and were usually made in Australia and sent to the soldiers to boost morale. It was not until 1953 that Menzies declared the blue ensign as the national flag, which was now to be flown above the Union Jack in Australia. The only major war we fought under the current Australian flag was Vietnam. Therefore, unless everyone in your family fought after 1953, most of them fought for the protection of the Union Jack or the red ensign, which is now out of use, not the current national flag. This is only just one argument for why we should change the flag.

A republic was no chosen at the last referendum because a) the question was made complicated, it wasn’t just whether we want a republic yes or no, but what system do we want b) we are a aging population, the polls show this with older people still feeling an attachment to the monarchy. However, I am optimistic about the future; the change to a republic is inevitable. From research, most of the youth do not feel any loyalty to the monarchy. Australia is evolving into a multi-cultural society; the ties with the “motherland” are weakening. Therefore within the next generation, when the old people whom still feel loyal to the English monarchy die out and the youth take the polls, we shall see a change in representation. The youth are the future and Australia is changing to show to the world our independence. We are Australian; Australian subjects and nothing else not British subjects or the queen’s subjects. I want to be viewed as such, and as you said SPOTTEDGREENDUCK, if you don’t like it, then leave. You seem to love England, the Union Jack and the monarchy so much, leave Australia and go there. I don’t know how you can claim to be a patriotic, true blue Aussie yet you still passionately defend an English woman thousands of miles away and her current constatutional right to “representationally” rule over you. Long live the Republic of Australia!

[Irish Gal]

Compleley agree with you Raf, Australia deserves its own identity.

When do you think there will be another vote?

[raf]

Irish Gal wrote: Compleley agree with you Raf, Australia deserves its own identity.

When do you think there will be another vote?

I don't believe there will be another referendum any time soon, or at least as long as John Howard is still Prime Minister, as he is a well known monarchist. The only reason why we had a referendum during Howard's time was becasue Paul Keating the former Labor Prime Minister was a strong republican and had on his agenda to make Australia a republic before the Sydney Olympics in 2000, which he had stuck in the mindset of the public even after Howard was voted in. If Latham had gotten in last election, we could have been having one sooner than we thought, though that is no the case. When (and if ever) Peter Costello becomes Prime Minister, I reckon we could have one before the 100th anniversary of Gallipoli in 2015, particularly with Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of the republicans last referendum, on side with the Liberals.