RemoteTiger said:
The head of the republic push in Australia was one Malcolm Turnbull - who this very day is being sworn in as a Minister for Johnny Bonsai's Inner Cabinet. A cabinet that holds a political philosophy which is directly opposite to that of the social democratic philosophy of the ALP.
Your arguments are usually far harder to dispute - and - your becoming a little sloppy with your rhetoric leaving gapping holes for antagonists to drive through.
Or maybe you are a chardonnay sipping socialist just having a lend of us all! Hmmm!
That is true, and hence I find it quite amusing when people bash the Liberal/Coalition government, as they are more similar to their beloved ALP (and vice versa) than what people realise....or maybe choose to ignore instead?
The official ALP line is that it is pro-republic, yet it would be quite interesting to see whether the republic agenda is pushed into the spotlight if Rudd does become Prime Minister.
Would PM-Rudd be prepared to suffer a backlash from his own electorate, and then lose the top job as PM if he actually does succeed in getting the republic up in a referendum?
I have a feeling he'll stick to the topics that will guarantee him a further term in Government (if he does win the next election)....that being water and the war on terror.
By the way, I'm not a wine drinker unless I've run out of beer and spirits!
As for the gaping holes.....well, if there are any holes, so be it.
I just type what I honestly think and believe.
While I certainly won't be voting "for" a republic, I do think eventually we'll get there.
It might be in my lifetime, and it might not....but all I hope is that it is done properly and slowly.
At the moment, I think many pro-republicans are using this as an excuse to push other agendas....agendas that would not see the light of day under the current Government we have.
For example, Catholics like Eddie McGuire, see becoming a republic a way where he can become more involved in the runnings of this country, simply to push forward things, ideas, or agendas he personally has a vested interest in.
Anti-Brits, such as immigrants who don't come from an Anglo background, or minority groups, see becoming a republic a way they can push forward their own ways and beliefs onto mainstream Australia.
Other individuals/groups see becoming a republic a chance to remove everything British, like the past 219 years never existed....such as changing our flag as well, which to me, is a separate issue altogether, yet somehow, it is usually the same people that want a republic, want our flag changed as well.
At the moment, becoming a republic isn't in the best interest of all Australians, but is really just a rebellious idea to give individuals and groups a chance to wield some type of power....a power they would never get with the Government the way it is today.
RemoteTiger said:
In a country of our size I would have thought the wanton waste of taxpayer dollars through duplication of public services across 3 tiers of government would be a very big issue.
I do not just see this just as a change to a republic - I see it as the beginning of a new system of government for Australia which will take our kids and grandkids safely & boldly into the next century...........
I don't know if you missed my post yesterday, but I did agree with you on this.
I do think we could get away with having a State government.
However, having said that, I'm going to plead a little bit ignorant here...and ask, do we HAVE to become a republic and change the whole Governmental structure from head to toe, to be able to remove one tier of the government?
With the Federal Government taking more ownership of assets that were once under the jurisdiction of the State government, then surely we could keep this going, until the State government itself is left redundant.
Do we have to become a republic, rip corners off flags, burn the Constitution, and the like...to be able to slowly ween ourself away from having a State government?
