What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

OT: Current Affairs and Politics

J

JohnStoppafarty

Bench
Messages
3,380
I'm a republican at heart but if there was another referendum about it I'd be considering the following.
a) Who is in power when it's called
b) Are the proposed (not to be sorted out later) changes to the wording of the Constitution of Australia, that will be required, be made available to the public in a verbatim document?

If that isn't being done, you should reject it.
 
S

Suitman

Post Whore
Messages
57,739
JohnStoppafarty said:
I'm a republican at heart but if there was another referendum about it I'd be considering the following.
a) Who is in power when it's called
b) Are the proposed (not to be sorted out later) changes to the wording of the Constitution of Australia, that will be required, be made available to the public in a verbatim document?

If that isn't being done, you should reject it.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Working shit out later doesn't work for me.
Sort it out first, give us a solid blueprint, and then put it to a referendum.
 
the phantom menace

the phantom menace

Coach
Messages
16,283
JohnStoppafarty said:
I'm a republican at heart but if there was another referendum about it I'd be considering the following.
a) Who is in power when it's called
Click to expand...
Someone's got to be in power when a referendum is called, by definition. So that actually doesn't really matter.

Unless there a particular circumstance around who's in power that you mean you would vote yes, and one that would mean you would vote no... so is there?
JohnStoppafarty said:
b) Are the proposed (not to be sorted out later) changes to the wording of the Constitution of Australia, that will be required, be made available to the public in a verbatim document?
Click to expand...
The current constitution of Australia is pretty short in the scheme of things, so if you're expecting all the detail (like last time...) you'll be disappointed.

It took them seven years to draft our constitution (with public consultations) before it could be put forward. You'd expect with a republic it would take similar work - but it all starts with a (short/brief) referendum question for us to decide to agree that drafting work be undertaken and commenced.
JohnStoppafarty said:
If that isn't being done, you should reject it.
Click to expand...
No, you should learn how nations actually more forward from ancient empire building histories, and how the mechanics of government in a modern democracy works (and vote to approve).
 
the phantom menace

the phantom menace

Coach
Messages
16,283
Suitman said:
I agree.
Working shit out later doesn't work for me.
Sort it out first, give us a solid blueprint, and then put it to a referendum.
Click to expand...
Lol, another one whinging that we're not a republic, but not realising we have to have a referendum (with general phrasing) to agree/approve to even start off... That type of thinking is exactly why the last vote was lost.
 
Gronk

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
80,838
Republicanism is a progressive notion and that means it will be seen as a negative to conservatives.

Can’t see it happening with bipartisan support. They will weaponise it, just like they did SSM and the V. ☹️

Like both those two ^^ very minor issues, it should be seen as a milestone and part of us growing up as a country.
 
Soren Lorenson

Soren Lorenson

First Grade
Messages
8,918
US Supreme Court rules tariffs unlawful so Trump announces more tariffs as replacement for the tariffs that he now cant have. Am I reading this right?

www.abc.net.au

Bombshell ruling by US Supreme Court kills tariffs

The US president says he is "absolutely ashamed" of members of the court who struck down his global tariffs after finding he lacked the authority to implement them.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
Gronk

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
80,838
Soren Lorenson said:
US Supreme Court rules tariffs unlawful so Trump announces more tariffs as replacement for the tariffs that he now cant have. Am I reading this right?

www.abc.net.au

Bombshell ruling by US Supreme Court kills tariffs

The US president says he is "absolutely ashamed" of members of the court who struck down his global tariffs after finding he lacked the authority to implement them.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
Yeah he didn’t go to congress to get approval. He just did it. Same way he invaded Venezuela.

Brett Cavanagh, his Supreme Court pick, said (paraphrasing) that unraveling and refunding all the tariffs collected so far will be a nightmare.

So much winning….
 
Bandwagon

Bandwagon

Super Moderator
Staff member
Messages
50,331
JohnStoppafarty said:
I'm a republican at heart but if there was another referendum about it I'd be considering the following.
a) Who is in power when it's called
b) Are the proposed (not to be sorted out later) changes to the wording of the Constitution of Australia, that will be required, be made available to the public in a verbatim document?

If that isn't being done, you should reject it.
Click to expand...

A referendum is about changing the constitution, the wording of the change is always made available to the public as it's required in order to make the change.
 
J

JohnStoppafarty

Bench
Messages
3,380
Bandwagon said:
A referendum is about changing the constitution, the wording of the change is always made available to the public as it's required in order to make the change.
Click to expand...
That's not how I remember it. I remember Albo saying (about the last one) that we'd figure out the details later, AND after much prompting, no one here could direct me to a verbatim wording of the proposed changes to it.
Only vague talking points.
I'm happy to be be corrected if you can source that material with a pre vote day date on it.
 
Bandwagon

Bandwagon

Super Moderator
Staff member
Messages
50,331
JohnStoppafarty said:
That's not how I remember it. I remember Albo saying (about the last one) that we'd figure out the details later, AND after much prompting, no one here could direct me to a verbatim wording of the proposed changes to it.
Only vague talking points.
I'm happy to be be corrected if you can source that material with a pre vote day date on it.
Click to expand...

Section 128 of the constitution sets out the process, it's not negotiable. A bill containing the actual amendments must be passed before a referendum can proceed.

Here is the bill for the voice referendum as passed


"the details" as you put it are not the changes to the constitution, but rather the legislation enabled by the change to the constitution. You, clearly like many fell prey to the misleading tactic of "show us the detail" of the opposition

That is not how shit works.

The whole point is the change to the constitution creates the something that can only change by referendum, the following legislation the change enables can be changed by the parliament at any point in time as the government so choose ( providing of course they can pass it )

For example, the 1967 referendum on counting Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders in the population, and to enable the federal government to make legislation about the same neither specified the details on how or what would happen in the counting, nor did it specify the details on what that legislation might be, or how it might change over the years.

Because there was no real opposition, and no fear mongering about the fact the change didn't "show us the detail" it passed at over 90%.

Would you have voted no, because you don't have the details back in '67?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top